Abortion

Thank you for the quick response. This portion will be repleted with rebukes against the arguments propounded by Con. Point 1- "you argue that an unborn baby is not a real human because it is not fully formed. Is anyone really fully formed until they reach the point where their bodies stop growing" Con ought to become a scientist. I always deemed it to be truly incomprehensible how their was a need in science to diffrentiate a fetus and a baby. There are only miniscule differances between a fetus and a baby. Minisucle differancees such as how a fetus depends on the mother for its survival. The fetus depends on the mother for food. The fetus will die if the mother will die. This is a common occurance that human beings go through as well. The fetus also between the 1st and 8 weeks will not have fully developed its brain. After the brain is develeoped, than the fetus starts to develop its arms, legs, and hands. I hope my sarcasm remained transparent. Po-lifers fail to comprehend that fetus's do not have access to rights. Fetus's are completely dependent on the mother, and the mother's rights completely outweigh a bowl of cells rights if it has any. Here is why Pro-Choice wins this argument. Con fails to any adequete evidence diffrentiating a baby from a fetus. Con fails to explicate the link between the fetus and the baby. Con fails to rebuke the notion of a fetus being completely dependent on the mother. Con fails to adress the legality argument(Does a Fetus have rights) which should be rendered as a drop. Point 2: "You also state that without a brain, the human is not truly a being. If you lose your arm, do you lose your status of human?" I appreciate the attempt to propound semantisism to convey your points, but your argument is completely unfounded, because it is based upon a false equivilance. A brain is what diffrientiates humans from apes, monkeys, lions, tigers, and horses. The brain dictates the functions of a human being. The reason why Con can participate in this debate is because of the mind. The reason why Con can propell pro-life absurdities is because of the mind. Take his mind away, and observe the repercussions of an individual without a mind. Is that really human. A 25 year old with no mind can easily be compared to a fetus before 8 weeks or an ant which is an offense towards ants, because ants actually carry out tasks. Anatamy makes us human, but what forms the anatoms. The brain allows for those actions to be carried out. Con claims that all components of humanity make us human. Yet, what really makes us die. The human brain is still alive after the heart ceases which can generate hallucinations. Con's foundation is based upon a false equivilance which nullifies the whole argument. Pro's argument still remains viable on the mind. Pro has provided clear vindication of how essential a mind is to a human, because the repercussions of a human lacking a mind are clear. Point 3: "Excuse me for saying so, but I do not think that inconvenience is grounds for killing a child." I can see how the word inconvenience can delude you, but I would speculate that many words concerning abortion would delude you. Yes, it is an inconvinience to not only endure the pain of childbirth, but to impel a poor woman to pay for it. A C-section will usually cost between $14,000 dollars to $25,000 dollars. Many of the women that attain abortions are too destitute to have access to insurance which would impel them to suffer this stipulation. A C-section will usually cost 3,000 dollars if the woman has access to insurance. An abortion to abrogate a growing seed is a more advantagous. Con completely underestimates the costs of childbirth. Con still adheres to the logic that a bowl of cells without a brain is entitled to the same rights as a fully functioning adult. Conclusion: The debate should not only be judged by the legality of abortion, but the repercussions of con's world. In con's world, women would face certain destitution in the face of a fetus having rights. In con's world, individuals who are brain dead are still considered living. In con's world, a human body part can be classified as life. Thank you for the quick response. This portion will be repleted with rebukes against the arguments propounded by Con. Point 1- "you argue that an unborn baby is not a real human because it is not fully formed. Is anyone really fully formed until they reach the point where their bodies stop growing" Con ought to become a scientist. I always deemed it to be truly incomprehensible how their was a need in science to diffrentiate a fetus and a baby. There are only miniscule differances between a fetus and a baby. Minisucle differancees such as how a fetus depends on the mother for its survival. The fetus depends on the mother for food. The fetus will die if the mother will die. This is a common occurance that human beings go through as well. The fetus also between the 1st and 8 weeks will not have fully developed its brain. After the brain is develeoped, than the fetus starts to develop its arms, legs, and hands. I hope my sarcasm remained transparent. Po-lifers fail to comprehend that fetus's do not have access to rights. Fetus's are completely dependent on the mother, and the mother's rights completely outweigh a bowl of cells rights if it has any. Here is why Pro-Choice wins this argument. Con fails to any adequete evidence diffrentiating a baby from a fetus. Con fails to explicate the link between the fetus and the baby. Con fails to rebuke the notion of a fetus being completely dependent on the mother. Con fails to adress the legality argument(Does a Fetus have rights) which should be rendered as a drop. Point 2: "You also state that without a brain, the human is not truly a being. If you lose your arm, do you lose your status of human?" I appreciate the attempt to propound semantisism to convey your points, but your argument is completely unfounded, because it is based upon a false equivilance. A brain is what diffrientiates humans from apes, monkeys, lions, tigers, and horses. The brain dictates the functions of a human being. The reason why Con can participate in this debate is because of the mind. The reason why Con can propell pro-life absurdities is because of the mind. Take his mind away, and observe the repercussions of an individual without a mind. Is that really human. A 25 year old with no mind can easily be compared to a fetus before 8 weeks or an ant which is an offense towards ants, because ants actually carry out tasks. Anatamy makes us human, but what forms the anatoms. The brain allows for those actions to be carried out. Con claims that all components of humanity make us human. Yet, what really makes us die. The human brain is still alive after the heart ceases which can generate hallucinations. Con's foundation is based upon a false equivilance which nullifies the whole argument. Pro's argument still remains viable on the mind. Pro has provided clear vindication of how essential a mind is to a human, because the repercussions of a human lacking a mind are clear. Point 3: "Excuse me for saying so, but I do not think that inconvenience is grounds for killing a child." I can see how the word inconvenience can delude you, but I would speculate that many words concerning abortion would delude you. Yes, it is an inconvinience to not only endure the pain of childbirth, but to impel a poor woman to pay for it. A C-section will usually cost between $14,000 dollars to $25,000 dollars. Many of the women that attain abortions are too destitute to have access to insurance which would impel them to suffer this stipulation. A C-section will usually cost 3,000 dollars if the woman has access to insurance. An abortion to abrogate a growing seed is a more advantagous. Con completely underestimates the process of childbirth. Con still adheres to the logic that a bowl of cells without a brain is entitled to the same rights as a fully functioning adult. Conclusion: The debate should not only be judged by the legality of abortion, but the repercussions of abortion