Abortion

First of all, some definitions for the purposes of the debate. a. PERSON: noun 1. a human being, whether an adult or child. 5. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being. 6. the actual self or individual personality of a human being. While this does fit definition as simply 'human being', it should be noted that this is (at least somewhat implied, given the nature of further definitions and the fact that we do not consider eg. sperm cells to be 'persons' despite the fact that they have their own unique DNA and exist 'independently' in the same manner that embryos do) likely for purposes of ease of use; all humans barring severe brain damage or crippling defects, are also persons, and we do not know of any persons who are not also humans, so the two words *can be used interchangeably* despite the fact that they do not mean the same thing. It is important to look at what 'Personhood' is and what it constitutes, in this instance. b. & c. PERSONHOOD: noun 1. the state or fact of being a person. 2. the state or fact of being an individual or having human characteristics and feelings. So, as we know that foetuses prior to ~26 weeks gestation, do not demonstrate higher brain activity (1) (which, scientifically and medically, is what causes living humans to demonstrate the quality of personhood, such as their ability to think, to actually feel, experience, act and so on; without higher brain activity and therefore the demonstrated quality of personhood, a human is medically and legally considered to be dead(2)) d. DEATH: noun 1. the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism. Compare brain death. 2. an instance of this This is the big one. The clear and undeniable comparison to 'Brain Death' as being synonymous with actual death is flatly not arguable. Current neuroscience tells us that it is a simple fact that cessation of meaningful brain activity is what 'death' even is. And now I'll respond to the opening argument by my opponent. Terms defined above will be assumed to be correct for this response. "Murder does not only mean if the HUMAN has Personhood it means the killing of a Human not just a Human Person, this said abortion is the Premeditated killing of an innocent. " This is a very simplistic reading of what the act of murder actually constitutes. Surely you aren't going to inference that ejaculation constitutes an act of manslaughter? I'm certain that you aren't, but from a logical inference point you have to in order for your argument to remain coherent; sperm cells and unfertilised eggs are just as 'human' as fertilised eggs are. This position also ignores the definition of the term 'death', specifically with it being synonymous and interchangeable with 'brain death'; if brain activity never existed to cease, it seems nonsensical to argue that any 'death' has occurred in terms we would use when a human person has been killed. Unless of course you are denying that death is synonymous with brain death, and that the assumed legal and medical definition is incorrect. ". .. once a woman willingly has unprotected sex, they have given the right to the child that may be created because of that choice. also if you are raped its called go to the hospital that night, get the morning after pill and don't wait for weeks up on weeks, and you should have to PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were raped not just say you were raped. " Even using multiple forms of protection perfectly, every time, can still result in impregnation. Even if this were not the case, your argument simply smacks of punishing people for having unprotected sex, which is arrogant moralising for the express purpose of harming others, and seems somewhat at cross purposes to the assumed anti-abortion sentiment of saving lives. It also disregards that consent to have sex =/= consent to become pregnant, give birth and/or raise a child. Consent is explicit; the mere fact that, for example, people regularly and often choose to engage in intercourse whilst taking precautions against becoming pregnant demonstrates that it is simply not reasonable to equate consent with one to consent with the other out of hand. In an enormous majority of cases, it is not possible to 'prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt' that one has been raped. Most rapists never face conviction or go to prison. If such a law as this existed, this would simply encourage women to lie about having been raped, and potentialy land innocent men in prison, in order for them to seek abortion in case of an unwanted pregnancy. This would effectively serve only to punish victims of rape and result in innocent people being accused of rape. Women do not stop seeking abortions simply because the law attempts to punish them for doing so; anti-abortion laws are simply means to punish pregnant women for attempting to utilise their rights over their own bodies, and more broadly to punish women for having sex. ". .. anyway That being said blaming the innocent for your mistake in not being protected is cruel and should be banned," Nobody is 'blaming' the foetus for anything; it is not being 'killed' to attempt to punish it in stead of the rapist (leaving out that abortion is not exclusively done in instance of rape, and in fact such abortions are a strict minority), the pregnancy is aborted in order to abort the pregnancy. Attempting to insinuate that abortions occur to punish rapists is nonsensical. ". .. also Husbands or whoever the father is of the baby( unless it rape of course) should have a say in it too and if they both don't agree it should not be able to be done as the baby does not only belong to the mother just cause its in her, the father of it is part of it too" The father is not the one who is pregnant, and whose rights to ownership over ones own body would be violated should the attempt to have an abortion be denied. Why should he get a say? Of course, assuming a pre-existing healthy relationship the issue should be talked over, but the simple fact of the matter is that the father does not have any rights to the womans body, and for that matter neither does the government, or the foetus. Why should others get veto rights over how one is 'allowed' to use their own body? Is that a universal standard, or do pregnant women simply not have ownership over their own organs? a. . http://dictionary.reference.com... b. . http://dictionary.reference.com... c. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 1. . http://www.lemauricien.com.... AND . http://www.nytimes.com.... 2. . http://brainblogger.com... AND . http://www.webmd.com...