Abortion

My apologies to both my opponent and the readers for the crappy formatting. My writing program was glitching out. I responded to my opponent's rebuttals through the same numbered format that they did (what they numbered "1" I also numbered "1" so readers can tell what I am refuting).1. Unsurprisingly, my opponent has failed to consider the fact that not EVERY single mother in such a situation would be aware of such resources. When reading my hypothetical, I am surprised my opponent didn't catch on to the fact that there are places in even the US where people barely know how to read and write (namely places like I have described) and is a very frequent occurence in third-world countries. Additionally, not EVERY ghetto has places such as those listed by Con (namely foreign, ghetto places). Despite my opponent pointing out such things, he has still failed to prove that the mother giving birth and raising a child in such an environment is more beneficial than harmful to the child. Further, my opponent has failed to get the gist of my main argument: before the baby is actually a *LIVING AND SENTIENT* being, and the mother knows the child will be raised in a harmful environment, then before the baby gains consciousness, a heartbeat, or other basic signs of sentient life, the mother should have the right to spare the potential child the hardship. Regardless of how my opponent wants to put it, the sentient mother has the right to terminate a potential unsentient life (much like birth control) that is inside of HER. Otherwise, it is a violation of basic human rights.2. Sigh, my opponent has shown yet another sign of mental deficiency, since he clearly does not have the mental capacity to have reading comprehension above an elementary level. Some places don't have libraries, FYI. Predictably, opponent did not have the intelligence to specify a certain country/region. What if the mother lived in Somalia, for example? I am not contradicting my hypothetical by utilizing this country to support my point. Most parts of Somalia are ghetto, ravaged by murder among other crimes, and have an uneducated population. Somalia has some of the highest murder rates in the world . In some lists, it is rated as the most dangerous country in the world [ . http://answersafrica.com... and . http://www.english-online.at...] to name a few. Also, it has a whopping 25.8% literacy population for females aged 15+ [ . http://www.indexmundi.com... ] so even if she found a library, which are a rarity there, she would have a rougly 75% of not being able to read. Additionally, Somalia has few computers in the entire country, especially compared to other places in the world. This negates my opponent's entire rebuttal. I wish to stress to the audience I am *NOT* contradicting my hypothetical from the first round. "You live in a ghetto area ravaged by crime, homelessness, and lack of education. There are murders daily, and it is *NOT* a safe place to raise a child. You yourself have no one to turn to and are homeless. You are alone in this world, and you know your child cannot be safe. " -Pro. Any place in Somalia fits all the criteria of my hypothetical.3. I'm facepalming so hard right now. .. Not only is this argument completely irrelevant, but my opponent is playing semantics games, which is NOT a sign of good conduct. I never denied life couldn't exist without cells, molecules, and all that biological stuff. However, abortion is a different case entirely. Sentient life, and non-sentient life are different things. It would be impossible to eliminate all photosynthesis and homeostasis as they are natural processes that happen by the miracle of nature. However, if something is NON-sentient for the timebeing, is living INSIDE of a sentient being, and wil SUFFER if s/he becomes sentient, then the already sentient mother should have the right to prevent the suffering. Otherwise, her rights are being violated in the worst way possible. Terminating a pregnancy that will only lead to suffering (it may lead to the mom suffering emotionally) if the prengnancy is carried out is very moral. It goes without saying that child death and starvation rates are high in Somalia. I doubt many mothers could bear seeing their child suffer to dramatically in such harsh circumstances.4. "Its clear my opponent denies the fact that cells themselves are living things when I had provided the evidence that they were. He/she apparently didn't specify so far as it comes to what KIND of life he/she was talking about. " -Con. I never denied that cells were living duma$$, but they are not sentient (self-aware, able to perceive surroundings etc. ), therefore that is completely unrelated to the topic at hand. Regardless, this is refuted by me above. Early abortion is justifiable for a plethora of reasons that I have already stated other than exceptions stated in round one. "Ironic, isn't it? I had proven cells were living things, and a fetus is made of cells. I would encourage voters to take THAT into consideration when the time comes to vote. " -Con. I encourage voters to take my above arguments into consideration. Clearly if a mother was in a bad circumstances, even for Somalian standards, and the cells are not sentient, then she should be able to terminate the pregnancy before sentiency in the zygote settles in. Me supporting terminating a batch of non-sentient cells to save it unbearable hardship in the future does not equate to me supporting the elimination of photosynthesis or the function of cells and their various organelles, nor does such things have any relations to abortion. SUMMARY OF THIS DEBATE:REASONS WHY I HAVE WON THIS DEBATE:My opponent has failed to properly refute either of the two parts of my case: a mother preventing a potential baby of being in a dangerous and unhealthy environment such as Somalia. Con attempts to refute this by talking of photosynthesis, homeostasis, and so on. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Second, my opponent suggests a library can help the mother find resources. But they fail to consider that many females in destructive areas (Somalia, lots of the Middle East, and other African countries) cannot read due to lack of education. Further, they may not know where the nearest library is. POINTS DROPPED BY MY OPPONENT:-If photosynthesis and other such processes are so relevant to this debate, should it be illegal to step on a plant? Where must we draw the line of what's immoral and moral? ?? -How is photosynthesis and non-sentient living cells relevant to abortion, when terminating a pregnancy will not eliminate the named processes? -Preventing early-term abortions is violating the rights of the mother. -The topic of early-term abortion being similar to that of birth control. My opponent didn't bother to rebut this at all. Is he against birth control as well? I could go on on dropped points, but I'll stop there. Since I have A. Successfully defended both parts of my case and my opponent has failed to do the same, and B. There are a sh! t ton of dropped points, of which should all go into my favor when voting. Thanks to my opponent for the debate, and thanks to any readers and voters out there. Goodbye to this debate. I half-regret being "rude" for much of this round, but my opponent had bad conduc first (semantic games, irrelevant arguments, lobbed false accusations at me, and repeatedly strawmanned me and this debate) but I digress. I hope my opponent continues debating, but he could use improvement, (as can I).