Abortion

After thanking Pro for responding to this debate, I would like to point out that: baised, victimes, independant, umblicical and seperate are spelled: biased, victims, independent, umbilical and separate respectively. Also, infact and lifeform are correctly written as: "in fact" and "life form". Some statements are also poorly written. For example: "Each year, 20 million unsafe abortions are estimated to take place each year" and "A woman has a right to control over her body" Your links are very generic. Instead of simply posting links to the home page please provide links to the specific content referred to. Although I brought up the unborn"s rights as an American, I was surprised you mentioned the 14th amendment because according to your profile you are Canadian. Your arguments also appear to defend the legalization of abortion while I was referring to abortion on the moral scale. That"s why I mentioned the creation-evolution debate. Considering this debate took the legalization path I will address this matter and leave the moral debate for later. I figure this information will be useful when you "copy-paste" your arguments on your next abortion debate as you did on this one. [1.]http://www.debate.org... round 2 That said, I will first clarify and defend my opening statements then present my rebuttals: "My opponent has no evidence to back up the statement that simply because something has DNA, it does not mean it has a right to life that surpasses the rights of a woman to control her own body."---Midnight Although your wording is a bit confusing I think I understand your meaning. As you used the term "right to life" you"ve said the unborn is alive. Life is matter that shows certain attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction---- http://www.britannica.com... That said, let"s compare "the unborn/ woman"s right to control her body" and "you/ Canada"s right to control her country". The unborn contributes nothing to his mother, he is a burden to her system, he takes her nutrition and he emits poisons in her body. Being a minor you compare nicely to the analogy between woman"s rights and Canada"s rights. Currently you are useless to Canada. You pay no taxes, you burden the healthcare system, you take from the schools; you breath air, you drink water and you emit poisons into Canadian atmosphere. Since Canada has the right to control those in her jurisdiction, I propose a law that all non-tax paying residents can be "aborted" on will. These eliminations are limited to safe-abortion methods which include: a powerful vacuum with a knife-edged tip that tears the flesh and vacuums it into a disposal bin, a hook shaped knife, and the method when forceps latch to a part of the unwanted; the teeth of the forceps twist and tear the bones of the person. This process is repeated until the victim is totally dismembered; usually the spine must be snapped and the skull crushed in order to remove them. Chemicals that commonly decapitate and removing the source of nutrition and oxygen can also be used. This proposal is viable because laws against homicide do not stop homicides from happening, with immigrates (rape) Canada should always have the option for elimination, Canada has the right to control her country, and the she has the right to privacy. With that analogy, why is abortion fine but eliminating non-tax paying residents not?? Your right to life does not surpass the rights of a country to control her own country. Btw, I also am an immigrant. "Now, concerning my opponents detour into evolution and creationism, this has nothing to do with the debate. My opponent simply states that the basic evolutionary model justifies abortion, I'd like them to explain what this has to do with the argument"----Midnight Like I previously stated, I, as the challenger was focusing on the moral debate not the legalization debate. The creation-evolution debate is so closely intertwined with the morals behind abortion that to leave it unaddressed would have been a sign of ignorance. But as mentioned, we"ll leave that debate for later. "Now moving on to their facts about a fetus's development, which I'd like voters to know are taken from a very baised site." ---midnight 1. And who taught you bias is wrong?? Almost every website is biased. evolution.berkeley.edu is biased toward evolution, www.who.int/en/ is biased toward abortion and http://www.tacobell.com... is biased towards Taco Bell! 2. Even if that site is totally biased, you called the information facts. If they are facts, they are true. 3. This is a debate that will be voted on, but really?? If you are solely concerned about votes, I perceive politician blood runs thick through your veins! "These facts actually have no substance, as they just tell you what happens in a child's developmental stage, my opponent gives no reason why any of these facts mean abortion is wrong."---Midnight Uh, the facts disagree. I stated that: "considering the underwritten information, [the unborn developing] the unborn is human and should be protected as a human." These facts mean abortion is wrong because the child is a "human and should be protected as a human"".. "Not to mention that their statement that "by 9 weeks, pain can be felt," is supported by no evidence. In fact, recent studies have shown that unborn babies can feel pain at 20 weeks, not 9"----Midnight 1. Again, the facts prove different. It said: "By 9 weeks from conception, all the structures necessary for pain sensation are functioning." It did not say: "by 9 weeks, pain can be felt". Although similar, these excerpts are quite different. The first clarifies that the "structures necessary" are functioning. 2. According to Campbell Neil and Butler Nance Cunningham in "Infants, pain and what health care professionals should want to know": "Studies indicate that cortical, subcortical, and peripheral centres necessary for pain per- caption begin developing early in the second trimester." Early in the second trimester would be approx. 14-15 weeks. From my research, it appears that the debate is focused around the definition of pain. But think about it: Is conventional murder permissible if the victim is "drugged out" and feels no pain? 3. According to your link, "At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG)." " Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto. S So, is abortion wrong after 20 weeks? "And since most abortions take place in the first trimester, which is from conception to week 12-13, this fact is irrelevant."----Midnight Irrelevant: not relating or pertinent to the matter at hand; not important---http://www.collinsdictionary.com... These facts are quite relevant because abortions, however rare, still take place after 20 weeks. It is related, it is pertinent and it is important. "Laws against abortions do not stop abortion from happening"---Midnight Not impressed. Laws against conventional murder, rape, incest, embezzlers and theft do not stop murder, rape, incest, embezzlement and theft from happening. So what?? Consider the following scenario, Honduras wants to commit a conventional murder, but since its illegal, she can"t. This isn"t true, because she can in fact attempt to murder without the help of people with the necessary skills. If she desperately wants to eliminate, she will probably resort to unsafe abortions. In 2014, over 90.4 out of 100,000 people were murdered in Honduras. Since many complications arise during the murdering process, we should make murder legal. http://www.unodc.org... And I'm out of space...