Abortion In General Should Be Illegal

Here's to a lively first debate (for me) on DDO. Since my opponent and I disagree on the definition of "child". I ask that we both refrain from using the word. In it's place, I shall be using the word "unborn" to refer to embryos, zygotes, fetuses, and the like. I. Murder and Rights. Murder is defined as "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. "-GoogleI want to point out the word "unlawful". First of all, we base our laws on that which we consider to be right. In most cases, we define what we consider to be right based on what we consider to be moral. However, immoral laws can exist, thus looking to the law for the authority on morality is a fallacy. If immoral laws exist, we must remedy them. However, I do want to point out what I consider to be a discrepancy in U. S. law:The United States Declaration Of Independence states that:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " (emphasis added)Thus we see that all human beings, under the USDOI, have the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. No law nor fellow human being can directly impose on these rights, unless that human being breaks the law, thus forfeiting their rights. Since the unborn neither directly infringe on their mother's right to life, liberty, nor the pursuit of happiness, we find that the unborn are guilty of no crime, and are therefore protected by our DOI, as well as our Constitution and Bill Of Rights, since both are joined to the DOI. Yet abortion remains legal in America. I consider this to be a contradiction. I think my opponent will agree with me on this. Though the real heart of the abortion debate seems to be the definition of "person hood" which is essentially what the law protects. More on this later. II. The Unborn are Human Beings. Since human beings are members of the race of Homo Sapiens and are living, we can logically ascertain that the unborn are human beings. The word "being" means existence, and in the case of organic beings, it means "living". Since we know the unborn are clearly alive (if they were not, they would never be capable of growing into fully developed human beings) and that they are human (their DNA is human, if they were not human, they would be incapable of growing into a human. Rather they would grow into another organic being, such as a duck or naked mole rat), thus the only logical conclusion is that the unborn are clearly human beings. I have a feeling my opponent will raise no objection to this. III. Defining Person hood by a single defining characteristic is illogical. The only substantial objection to protecting the rights of the unborn I have ever heard is whether or not the unborn are truly persons. Some claim that no human being is a person until they have a developed consciousness. Others claim that no human being is a person until they are fully independent of their mother's body. There are other arguments still, but I will only address them if my opponent presents them. The problem with defining person hood by a particular characteristic is that it is illogical. For example, it is like defining the sun by it's ability to shine, a dog by it's ability to bark, or a car by it's ability to drive. The problem is that it concludes that during the night, the sun is not a sun, that a dog is not a dog when it can't bark, and that a car isn't a car when it cannot drive. This is what I consider to be the greatest flaw in defining person hood by a particular characteristic. However, if this method of defining person hood were logical, it is not being properly applied to by our governmentA. Defining Person hood by consciousness. If a person is defined by their ability to exhibit a consciousness, then those who are in a coma (medicated, or trauma induced), anyone who is asleep, the mentally handicapped, and all infants would be non-persons. If this were true, then it would be morally and lawfully acceptable to kill any of these human beings. B. Defining Person hood by independence of the mother's body. If this were the definition of person hood, then no adolescent child reliant on it's mother for milk, shelter, and love, could be considered a person. Infants are reliant not only on their mothers for food, but for touch, as this newsletter by Ben E. Benjamin, Ph. D, shows: a) . http://www.benbenjamin.com...However, we know that born human beings are protected by law, and that it is immoral to kill a breastfeeding humanbeing,thus logically dependence on the mother's body can not be relied upon to define person hood. IV. Making Abortion Illegal Decreases Abortion and Maternal Mortality Rates. The best example of an abortion-free country is the Republic Of Ireland. Abortion is illegal in Ireland except if the pregnancy endangers the women's health. In Ireland, not only has the number of women traveling out of country to get an abortion decreased from 5.9 thousand in 2005 to 4.4 thousand 2010, but the number of Irish women women getting abortions in United Kingdom has decreased from 7.5 women per thousand in 2001 to 4.4 per thousand. a) . http://www.hse.ie...In addition, Ireland's Maternal Mortality Rate is one of the world's lowest at 6 deaths per 100,000. This is lower even then America's Maternal Mortality rate which is 8 deaths per 100,000. b) . http://www.nationmaster.com...V. Rape And Incest. First of all, only about 0.2% of all forcible rapes actually result in a pregnancy. The reasons for this are that often rapists either don't finish, the victim is either too young or too old to be impregnated, or the most common reason: the stress caused to the woman prevents a pregnancy. All of this is clearly outlined by John C. Willke, M. D. here:a) . http://www.christianliferesources.com...(While I tend to shy away from citing clearly Christian sources, the author is a Doctor of Medicine, so I consider him qualified and a trustworthy source)Anyway, even for cases of rape, we must ask ourselves, do two wrongs make a right? A human being conceived of rape is innocent on all accounts. Punishing the child for the crimes of the father is illogical and immoral. In addition, there are accounts in which women who had been raped reported that while having healed emotionally from their rape experience, they had yet to heal from their abortion experience. These accounts and statistics regarding sexually assaulted women who wish to discourage abortion can be found at the following sites: a) Victims and Victors (Acorn Books, 2000) b) . http://www.abortiontv.com... c) . http://www.fletcherarmstrongblog.com... d) . http://www.pregnantpause.org... e) . http://afterabortion.org... f) . http://www.abort73.com... VI. Abortion In Self Defense. It doesn't make sense to force a woman to carry a pregnancy that will kill her and her child. This is why I think abortion is justifiable if in the case of a legitimately life-threatening medical condition. I look forward to hearing my opponents counter-arguments! Merry Christmas, everyone.