New Member Tournament: Abortion

Let's start with rebuttals on my points. P1. Self- OwnershipMy Opponent's point here is that the right to life should override the right to self- ownership. What he misses is that an override of self-ownership is in fact an override of the right of life. Take for instance a situation where a woman is at an extremely high risk for death because of her pregnancy. It is justified that a woman would terminate a fetus to save her own life. To extend this point further, we can see that about 13% of deaths in pregnancy are due to unsafe abortions. [1] We are killing women because they are forced into aborting their child illegally. Life trumps self-ownership? Not when self-ownership is supporting life! "the number of legal abortions declined by 22.22 percent[. .. ] one factor that played a role was the increased amount of anti-abortion legislation that was passed at the state level. "This quote by my opponent can be negated. This specifically says that legal abortions have declined, when in fact we already know that there are a number of illegal abortions going on. If the law is too restriction, or the pay to expensive, one will resort to illegal abortion. My opponent says it is faulty to compare abortions in developing and developed countries, when in fact, this isn't quite so. Comparing the results between countries shows that similar amounts of people are aborting regardless of it being legal or not. I'll again provide this link. [2] Abortion does not stop because it is illegal. Restrictions against abortion are killing women. P2. Responsibility of Parent & Value of LifeMy opponent says here that responsibility of the parent does not extend to the right to kill ones child. This is faulty because in fact, we know that this does happen. When the kid is in a state of deteriorating health, it is sometimes the parent's responsibility to pull the chord on them. They are the ones with the final say on what happens; the ones that have to make the decision and live with the consequences. Here is a heart-wrenching account of a mother's need to end her babies life. [3]We know that sometimes the best decision is not the most happy one. In the case of abortion, sometimes this unhappy decision is needed for the mothers safety, or to prevent suffering of the baby. It is the mothers responsibility to choose this. Now let's move on to rebuttals of my opponents case. C1. A fetus is a human. I agree with my opponent in that a fetus, regardless of the arguable time frame, does turn into a human. This does not necessarily equate to quality of that humans life. Let's look at my opponent's example to see how this applies. He equates a fetus to a baby in a coma; while in fact people in comas can think and feel. [4] One might say that it is more morally permissible to kill something that cannot think or feel. Smashing a rock is a lot more benign than killing a loved one, and there are many steps on this spectrum that have their own weight of moral acceptability. For example, killing a fetus, which cannot yet think or feel, is doing less harm than killing an animal; yet there are very minimal laws restricting us from killing a wild animal or even a pet. My opponent might say here that the fetus will grow into one that can think and feel. Yes it does, but in the next point I will show why sometimes killing a human is morally acceptable, and it is easier and more justified to kill a human preventative, when it has no thoughts or feelings, than to kill one that is fully grown and aware. C2. It is morally wrong to kill a human. This point is the one in which I think my opponents case ultimately fails. There are instances in which it is morally acceptable to kill a human. Take the example of a parasitic twin. [5] This is essentially a living being (it can think and feel) that cannot fully function, and is relying on the nutrients of the fully healthy body. Whether the "full" twin is at risk of death, or the parasitic twin is dampening the quality of the full twin's life, in this case it is held as normal and morally acceptable for the parasitic twin to be removed, die, and save the life of its twin. So lets see how Con's claim is really stacking up:1. A fetus will develop into a human being. 2. It is sometimes morally wrong to kill a human. C. It is sometimes morally wrong to kill a fetus. Now let's see how this compares to the resolution "A woman has the right to choose whether or not to abort. " Because there are times when abortion is a necessary act, there are times when a woman's choice to abort a baby is morally acceptable. The woman is the one who has final say over her body, and her baby's body, (remember, in the a example about the parasitic twin, the parent will decide the course of action) so it is justified to say that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to abort her child. I have shown, through self-ownership and parent's responsibility, that abortion is a decision that must be made by the mother. The woman has the right to determine the well-being of herself and her baby, and therefore has the right to abort. 1. . http://www.who.int...2. . http://www.nytimes.com...3. . http://www.aish.com...4. . http://aubreyallyn.hubpages.com...5. . http://en.wikipedia.org...