New Member Tournament: Abortion

I am going to start this round off with quick rebuttals before moving onto a summary of the arguments presented. Self Ownership "My opponent agrees that abortion in the risk of death is permitted due to self-defense. If we agree to this, then it only follows that we agree to let the woman chose to abort. This is because the risk of death is inherent in all pregnancies" Approximately 0.1% of pregnancies end in death[1]. If a fetus is indeed a human, a 0.1% risk should not constitute justification for a murder. If the mother is at a significant risk, then it would be justified to kill one and save the other. However, in the vast majority of cases it would be not be necessary to kill the fetus to save the mother. "A woman should not be labelled a murderer for doing what was needed to keep herself from risk; or potentially keep her child out of danger or in a poor quality of life." I am not saying that a mother should be labeled as a murder, mainly for the reasons you listed. I was saying that abortion was comparable to killing or murder without the malice. Responsibility of the Parent/Value of Life "My opponent's point here is that fetuses are growing towards a healthy existence. This is not always the case. Sometimes the fetus grows outside of the womb, putting the mother and baby at serious risk." In the few cases where the baby and/or mother is not likely to make it, abortion is justified. However, in the vast majority of cases, neither the baby nor the mother is at any significant risk. "The point here is that the parent's have the responsibility to feed, protect and care for their child. If this is not accessible, it is in the parent's right to stop this from happening." If a mother discovered after she gave birth that she would have trouble feeding her child, would she be justified in killing her child? Though a child may be hungry, atleast s/he isn't dead. A Fetus is a Human "Stopping a fetus from growing into a devalued life will stop this from happening without the fetus being aware or experiencing the pain." In the vast majority of cases, a person in a coma would not be aware of death. "A person is not killing another, but preventing themselves and the baby from danger. Therefore it is always justified in a legal aspect and should be allowed. Murder is a more clear act of vengeance or hate; where an unjustified murderer goes to jail. " Though the mother may not be committing her act out of any particular malice, abortion is still killing. The motive only effects whether or not criminal is punishable for his acts (in this case the mother is not), but not the effects of the crime. The motive does not matter, the outcome does. Summary My opponent's case is basically "abortion should be made legal to protect those mothers who want to abort and consequentially keep them at a greater chance of survival" However, if a fetus is a person, then abortion is almost always not killing one to save the other. In the vast majority of cases, a fetus will be killed for no reason. Remember, only 1 out of a 1000 mothers die in childbirth. Would you want to kill 1000 to save 1? My case is essentially P1: A fetus is a human. P2: It is morally wrong to kill a human. C: It is morally wrong to kill a fetus. Though there may be a few cases in which abortion and killing are justified, that does not mean that both must always be legal. Just because they are sometimes justified does not mean that they are always justified. Sources [1] https://docs.google.com...