Abortion

"Con concedes that the fetus does not meet the reproduction requirment of the definition that THEY provided. This is crusical to note because this is a contradiction on their behalf and this should be considered and taken into account when voting." Yes, this IS very crucial when voting, because I have rebutted this faulty argument 3 TIMES ALREADY, and he STILL pretends as if I didn"t. So yes, take note people, if he cannot rebuttal my point, then vote Con. "Con states that they got their characteristics of life from their biology class. This is insufficient evidence. I also got mine from my biology class however I managed to source and prove that this classification of life is valid whereas yours has been based off bare assertion. Con continues to make the claim that children that haven't meet puberty is a sufficient rebuttal since I said that the fetus isn't fully developed. Con clearly skims my case because if they had read it properly and thouroughly they would have noticed that I refuted this a number of times. I have clearly said and demonstrated that children are developing humans whereas the fetus is developing to BECOME a human. It is not yet a human whereas a child is. Since the child belongs to the human race this means that it is considered living whereas the fetus does not yet belong to the human race. This means that it is considered separate to humans and is therfore should be assessed separately unlike children." Let"s break Pro"s argument down shall we? He says here, that children are alive, even though they cannot reproduce yet, but a fetus is not alive for the same reason that he was willing to discredit to say that a child is alive. His rational of this, is that a child belongs to the human race, and overall, humans can reproduce. But he does not consider a fetus to be part of the human race, even though he never offers a real explanation as to why it is not. I on the other hand offered a perfectly reasonable reason why they ARE part of the human race; their genetic is human genetics. Please note, if Pro argues that a fetus is not a human because it is not alive, this is called a circular argument, and you should vote Con for it. "Con continues to state that there is a difference between reacting to stimuli and responding to it. To end the confusion I will provide sources to prove that it doesn't react to stimuli and it doesn't respond to it either. a) The fetus does not respond to stimuli. b) The fetus doesn't react to stimuli. He believes that the fetus is human however this is easily disproven, and it has already been done so, nevertheless I will provide more supporting evidence to satisfy him." This is the testimony of scientists, unless they can get a "pain-o-meter", they cannot say that a fetus cannot feel pain, however, I have the next best thing, the only thing that can detect the pain in a body; the person in that body, and this person can TESTIFY that she DID feel pain in a failed abortion [1]. "Human Characteristics" "- Consciousness" Babies are conscious in their mother"s womb [2]. "- Sentience" This is a synonym as above. "- Response to stimuli" Actually, your citations prove that a fetus DOES respond to stimuli, so I will cite YOUR OWN sources [3]. - Ability to feel emotions You cannot detect emotions so this will have to be discounted. "- Excretion" You gave this to me. "- Independantly supply itself with nutrition" People on injected nutrition are not humans I guess, you cannot say that it is of the overall humans, then I could say a lizard is a human and it does not fit the characteristics, it applies to the overall human. How do we tell then? Genetics, it has human genetics it"s a human, it doesn"t, it isn"t, a lizard does not have human genetics, a fetus does. "- Indepenantly respire" "- Be able to feel and sense things around it" This is a synonym of 1 and 2. "Continuation of R4 Rebuttals Con attempts to refute the libertarian framework extention however this is extremely difficult for them to do given the fact that I provided sources demonstrating libertarian philosohpy and views on abortion whilst my opponent attempts to tackle it without any evidence. Con, instead of refuting anything that I said makes assertions about what the government has a right to do. This is unfortunately is the subjective and completely arbitrary opinion." The foundation of libertarianism is the Declaration of Independence, I quoted it and shew how your views are a violation of it. "The declaration of rights and responsibilities for governments, individuals and societies approes of the UK of a good model and demonstration of a country that properly enforces human rights [4]. The UK advocates and has abortion legal and is a good model of human rights. Ergo, we can conclude that protecting the unborn (ie. fetus') is not a responsibility that the government has [5]." Good model? You don"t even have the right to bear arms, free speech, privacy (thanks to George Bush we don"t either, but then again George Bush is a relative of the British crown, I think they and their descendants have an issue with human rights), and your taxes are 95%, ours is 55%. So as you can see, the British bill of rights is a TERRIBLE example of how a government should act. "I'll reiterate this, since con has provided no alternative framework you ought to vote Pro based on this premise alone." Conservativism. "He does something serious that is NOT acceptable during a debate. He make the following summary of my position and says that I SAY THIS. I did not say this and this make my position look bad. He also puts this in quotation marks to make it took even more like I said this. Con's summary of my position that "supposedly" comes from me, is false and should be penalized with conduct at the very least. I'll refute con's untrue summary of my case: "Because men do not have to deal with the hormonal issues associated with pregnancy, that women are being treated unequally, therefore we must allow them to commit abortion so they can be equal to men." Con provides this quotation to go against my case and then refutes it. I will not refute his reubttal to a summary that he made since I never made any of the arguments that con says that I did. I did say that women aren't getting their rights but I made no such comparisons to men. I said that women have the right over their body and can do what they like with it and I provided a number of quotes from philosophers backing up this view. This has very little relation to men and virtually no relation to men not having to deal with hormonal issues as con falsely says when summarising my case. You said that pregnancy is a state of emotional turmoil, therefore a woman to go through it is unequal. So yes, this is your argument, points to Con for Pro lying. "I never said that the fetus was trespassing or committing any acts like this on the mother's body. I simply said that it is the mothers choice and it should be assessed by them since it is their body. Yes the fetus is dependant on the mother however the fetus wouldn't know the difference if it was alive or dead [1]." Pro lies again, vote Con! "Con's old man analogy is still faulty despite the additions that he has made. Even if the boy is asleep he still wants to live and he still meets the requirements for being a living things as I have continually demonstrated. Therefore, killing the boy isn't justified however aborting the fetus is. Also, the abortion of the fetus is quick and painless (because the fetus cannot feel pain) [1][3]. The boy will have to drown and will almost certainly wake up upon impact of the water and will struggle to get out and will slowly die due to the lack of oxygen. Con's solution is adoption however this is easily refuted. In a year in the US 135,000 adoptions occur, this is due to the lack of willing parents [6]. In a year in the US 1.2 million abortions occur [7]. This means that you're 975,000 parents short. On top of this, you'll probably need even more parents considering that there are other adoptions occuring anyway for reasons other than abortions." As I remember, there are what " 1 million gay people who want to adopt children, just pawn them off to them, sure they make worse parents, but it"s worse than being dead. Con concedes that the fetus and embryo are not human by failing to respond to my argument. I clearly layed out the stages and they simply responded with the following words: "I could never find out how they do that." This is clearly not a rebuttal and therefore this should be treated as a concession to the argument. Actually, I was referring to you posting a picture on your argument and I said I could never figure out how they post pictures on an argument. "Con believes that the burden of proof is on me however I have clearly proven that it is shared. Con is still contradicting themselves. If the BOP really was on me then there was no need to provide initial arguments which he did. Based on this, you ought to assume that the BOP in this debate is shared. Con obviously believes that there argument is self-evident however this doesn't mean that everybody agrees. My opponent believes that I hold the BOP because their position is evident however I clearly disagree and have provided clear reasons as to why the BOP is shared. You ought to presume pro here." I said that the right to Life, Liberty, and Property is self-evident, if you don"t know it, that"s what happens when you live in a communist country (oh, I"m sorry, a "Socialist" country, it"s a synonym, you use it to make yourselves feel better about living in Commie-land) , you don"t even know what universal rights are anymore. "Con says that nobody will try illegal abortions. They are wrong in R1 I showed that 13% of all pregnancy related deaths are because of illegal abortions." I did not say that, I said that we should punish abortion because it cannot be tolerated, as to reduce it. "Con says that the death penalty is okay in some scenarios but they fail to understand that they just said that life was important and should never be taken." I said that life is sacred and should only be taken in certain circumstances, including the death penalty, however, a fetus has committed no crime so this does not apply. [1]. [2]. [3]. http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...