Abortion

1. Murder is not wrong criminally—Roe v. Wade established that abortion is completely legal. Second, my opponent simply states it violates the 6th commandment (which I may add is a Jewish and Christian doctrine there are hundreds of other religions) without providing any analysis. Why is it necessarily wrong to kill a fetus? My opponent is making the inherent claim the fetus has the right to live. I will attack this inherent point in my case. 2. Some people use contraceptives. Over half of abortions are a result of failed contraceptives. (1) 3. Women go through psychological issues because of pregnancy as well (2). Furthermore, unwanted children (those who were not aborted) have a much higher chance of leading a dysfunctional life (3). Should we condemn those children to that fate? 4. These issues can arise from natural pregnancy as well. I cross apply my third attack here. 5. My opponent makes a contract out of sexual intercourse. This is inherently incorrect. People have a constitutional right to have non-procreative sexual intercourse (4, 5). The legality of birth control furthers this point. Consenting to sex does not mean you are consenting to get pregnant as it is a right to have non-procreative sex. If a person consents to non-procreative sex (they use contraceptives) then they are not consenting to have the child develop within them. The acknowledgment of "x" does not equal consent for "x". 6. My opponent wishes to increase the number of children in foster homes. How is this a good thing? You say the needs of those who want to adopt go before the needs of the child. (Cross number 3). 7. I ask my opponent to explain how this is relevant. There is nothing wrong with sexual intercourse. 8. Please explain the relevance here. (Cross apply number 3). 9. Once again explain the relevance. What does the Hippocratic Oath have to do with anything. Now for my case. Before I begin, I ask a single question, why does the fetus have a right to live? Where does the fetus get the right to use one person's body for its own good? Let me present a hypothetical: there is a rock star that is dying from a deadly disease which can only be cured if he is "connected" to your kidneys for 9 months. There is a risk you may die and you definitely will be bedridden, your diet and exercise will be carefully monitored by doctors. The question is: does this rock star have a right to your kidneys? No. The rock star has no right to demand use of your kidneys as his due. He has no right against you to use your kidneys. Only you can decide whether to let him use your kidneys or not. Let us say you consent and allow him to use your kidneys. It still is not his right to have use of your kidneys. It is only out of kindness you allow him to use your kidneys. You still reserve the full right to deny the rock star the use of your kidneys as you have to right to deem who can use your kidneys. A pro-life activist must make the claim the rock star has the right to use your kidneys otherwise they are being hypocritical in thinking the unborn have the right to its mother but, a rock star does not have the right to your kidneys to save his life. Let's put it in another sense: does someone who needs an organ (a kidney, heart, liver, etc) have the right to another person's organs? My opponent must answer yes. I say no, simply because it is not theirs to demand. A person in need of a liver cannot demand someone give them a piece of their liver. It is not their place to demand someone go through surgery and the many months of recovery. Even if someone initially consents to the surgery they can still recant their consent as that remains their right. In both of these situations above there is a constant. The person(s) in need do not live because it is their moral right to demand what is not theirs but, because of the kindness of the donor. In the same way the unborn does not develop into a human being because of its inherent right to what is not theirs but, instead, because of the kindness of the mother. In all of these situations, a person is contingent upon another person. This makes their right to the bare necessities of life invalid simply because what they need to live infringes upon what is not and would never be theirs except for the niceness of another human being. Throughout this argument I have conceded that the unborn were human from fertilization. (That in itself is a debate). In my first point, I have attacked the premise "the unborn have a right to life" and the premise "every human has an inherent right to life". My second point attacks the unsaid premise that a fetus is completely innocent. My last point directly attacks the conclusions and shows why it is moral to have an abortion. A human being, and as a human being the unborn, cannot have the right to live if their right to live is contingent upon somebody else as it is transforming from a right into the kindness of another person. Now let me continue, let us say I am dying from a deadly disease. All that I need to live is for you to come and poke me. Do I have the right that you should come poke me? No. My life is dependent upon something I have no right to demand. I have no right that you should come and poke me. There is no moral right that I should be poked by you. Yes, it would be extremely kind of you. But, kindness is not the same as a right. This applies to pregnancy because the fetus is demanding something which is not theirs to demand. What gives the fetus the right to demand a "poke" from the mother? What gives me the right to demand you poke me? Nothing. Sources: 1. . http://pregnancy.adoption.com... 2. . http://womensneuroscience.stanford.edu... 3. David, Henry P. et al. , eds. 1988. Born Unwanted: Developmental Effects of Denied Abortion. Springer Publishing Co. , New York. (book) 4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 (decision) 5. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972 (decision)