Abortion is Murder (providing for exceptions in extreme medical emergencies)

( Re: B/C/D ) Pro maintains that human life is defined as being alive and being human, and that "a child" from conception is alive at any point of development. In that case, OF COURSE a fetus is alive; the very sperm and egg cells that create the fetus are indeed ALIVE. In that case, the "killing" of every living that that has the potential to create life (i.e. a sperm cell) would be murder. So, the next time you lube up and spend a few minutes wanking off in a tube sock to the point of ejaculation, just know that you are committing murder, Pro, according to your definition of the term. If you (or anyone) disagrees, then these points must not be considered in affirmation for the Pro. Remember that just because a zygote is alive, doesn't mean that it is subject to full human rights. Consider the fact that an ameba is alive, has DNA, and has all of the same characteristics as a human zygote except for the fact that it is not a potential person. However, that "potential" person is not equivalent to an ACTUAL person, therefore we have no moral obligation to defend the rights of a zygote any more than we have an obligation to defend the human rights of an ameba. Similarly, the cells that compose of the zygote are in fact human, as Pro pointed out, the same way that the cells on hair follicles are alive and human. In other words, a hair follicle from your head is just as human as a zygote (it contains the same unique DNA that Pro-Lifers claim make a zygote a person), and yet nobody would argue that you cannot cut or "kill" your hair. In other words, a zygote is not a person. The definition of a person reads - being an individual, or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity. Clearly a zygote nor a fetus would fit this description. Furthermore, many would argue that a "person" doesn't even exist until the point of Consciousness, but I digress. ( Re: A ) I have several qualms with Pro's Point A: First, Pro claims that there is a social condemnation of murder, and that the individual reasoning of the people are not important to this argument. Of course, this point is dripping in fallacies. I'll start with the main one: Argumentum ad populum - appeal to the general public; trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you. In that case, you'll have to consider the Argumentum ad numerum - appeal to numbers; the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. However, regardless of how many people believe something, it doesn't necessarily make it true or right. For instance, even if 70% of people think that 1 + 1 = 3, it doesn't make that popular opinion correct. Additionally, it is the 'individual opinions' of the people that constitute a majority opinion in the first place, so I think the opinions of those people are actually completely relevant. . Second, ethical reasoning is in fact pretty important. Pro calls for the LEGAL protection of all human life, but it is the moral and ethical codes that we wish to live by which determine what our laws should be. Even if you don't agree - even if you point out that, say, a Dictator is capable of making laws, then that only asserts the fact that what is legal isn't always what is morally sound (and vice versa), or what the majority people believe (even if you believe in a majority rule). Furthermore, morality or beliefs and opinions have a way of transferring from one generation to the next, regardless of what is "right." For instance, a woman is best suited to give birth at around age 15; however, many people in society look down upon such young women having children, that this biologically "right" characteristic is ignored based on the constraints of society (where it was accepted in the past). That said, I question Pro's reasoning as to why the intentional ending of human life by another individual (when not done during war, in self defense, as assisted suicide, or capital punishment) is necessarily wrong. Consider the Objectivist view of abortion: An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). Abortion is a moral right, which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body? [ "Of Living Death" -- The Objectivist -- October, 1968 ] Pro has the burden of proving why this view is wrong. Additionally, Pro brought up the issue of sanity at the start of the debate. Personally, I'm skeptical to accept such a loosely defined (or non defined) description of what "sanity" is. However, if you do accept his presumption that nobody who is sane wants to be murdered, then it also seems reasonable to accept that nobody who is sane wants to murder. In that case, what about the soldiers who take pleasure in the killing of their enemies? Why does the act of being involved in a war make it morally permissible to kill? Pro is insisting that people follow (even immoral) orders blindly, without making an individual judgment on whether it is right or wrong to take another human life in a given situation. Clearly not everybody agrees; this is because sometimes individuals are held to a standard which maintains that they have to make their own decisions and not just do what they are old (see: Nuremberg Trials). Outside of the boundaries of an accident, killing at ANY time should be wrong and considered murder according to Pro. The resolution states that it is murder providing for exceptions in extreme medical emergencies, but who is to determine what these "emergencies" are? What if a mother is subject to postpartum or depression, and having a child can send her in a downward mental spiral? Would that be considered a medical "emergency?" Moreover, what if a soldier kills a man during a time of war, even though he has no hostility towards that man and the war was considered unjust by a majority of people (i.e. the war in Iraq) - did that soldier commit murder? My point here is that if murder (killing) can be justified at any point, then I don't see why it wouldn't be justified in terms of abortion, especially according to the facts: (1) Most abortions occur during the first trimester of pregnancy, when a fetus cannot live independently of its mother and cannot exist without her (2) Personhood =/= human life (3) An occurance where rape or incest results in a pregnancy, having a baby can have irreparable medical (mental) impacts on the mother, thus severely threatening the value of her life, even if it is not an "emergency" in that she can still survive without having an abortion (4) Civil rights (the right of women to govern their own bodies, independent of any social or legal obligation) . Finally, I'll avoid the blatantly obvious fact that Pro spoke of murder only in regard to HUMAN rights, and didn't include anything about the intentional killing of animals for sport or (unnecessary) food, but again, I digress. I think I have successfully negated the resolution and all of Pro's claims up until this point without having to make such an obvious argument. Back to you, Pro.