The use of force to stop Abortion is justified.

Counterpoint 1 My opponent enters in tragic error almost immediately. The question is not the definition of death, since, to die a being must first become alive. The question is when does life begin. "A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony. Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated: "I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life.... I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage." Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, "after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being." He stated that this "is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," and "not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence." He added, "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data." Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter"the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals." A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, "Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.""(entire section quoted from http://www.epm.org...) My opponent, also mentions the cessation of brainwaves as a medical definition for death, again, this definition is the wrong one for this debate, but it may interest her and any thoughtful reader that detectable brainwaves begin emerging at day 40 of a pregnancy. The heart begins to beat at day 21. (see http://www.pregnancy.org...) My opponent said "The right to life is applied to individuals who have awareness. Simply because something has a beating heart and breathing lungs does not give it life." Exactly what level of awareness are we speaking of here? A fetus can respond to a myriad of stimuli (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). already placing it in a category of awareness greater than many born persons who have fallen seriously ill. I would also like to point out that my opponent has sourced a veterinary journal in describing fetal development. I would be ROTFLing (as the kids say) if this wasn't such a serious topic. Counter-point 2 My opponent states "Moreover, even if you continue to consider the unborn fetus as alive (which I am arguing is definitely not), thus giving the assaulter probable cause, the act of using physical force is still not permissible. The reason behind this is because when violence is used against pregnant leads to harm, and even death, to the child. So, if physical force is used you are causing the "innocent human life" harm. There is no probable cause to harm the child. Therefore, physical force is not justified and it is not morally permissible." My opponent is arguing that it is immoral to take a relatively small risk of harm or death to the child, to prevent the certain death of the child. I am stunned. Furthermore, I have not specifically delineated that the use of physical force should be levied against the pregnant woman. It could just as effectively be leveled at the abortionist, or the facility itself. My opponent argues that abortion is the choice of the woman. Certainly it is, at least as much as it would be my choice whether or not to commit a murder, but it does not legally or morally preclude a person from stopping me, even with force. My opponent states "it is HER body", but the child's body is not. Finally, my opponent asks "Do we have the right to force someone to do as we please?". The answer is yes. We do so everyday with legislation requiring or prohibiting a whole host of actions and behaviors.