Abortion, (from athiest perspective.)

To begin I will respond to my opponents question about if I was using a genetics argument And his assertion that moms are not better just because they choose against abortion. To be clear I am not using a genetics argument, not all adaptations we pass on are from our DNA. One of mankind's greatest adaptations that was passed on to the rest of the race in history was when a man learned to use fire. But death is still important in even that kind of adaptation like it is with genetic ones, the population that cannot use fire must die and population that can must spread. The preferable adaptation I spoke of the non-abortion choosing parents was more of the kind like learning to use the wheel than it was the adaptation of being six feet tall. The reason I say non-abortion choosing parents have an adaptation that's better to pass on to the next generation that makes up the population, is the bear minimum things you can deduce about the one who does choose to have abortion for some reason. There are only a few conceivable ones, certainly the only ones I ever here. Some choose to have an abortion because there child would be fiscally burdensome and they don't feel up to handling it. Some choose because of the emotional stress it would put them under and they don't feel they are up for it. Some choose for a more mental reason that they don't feel up to handling. I am pretty sure those three broad categories can classify any of the excuses given to have an abortion that you are ever going to here but if you think otherwise I challenge you to provide a example that does not fit them. Fundamentally the choice for an abortion came from a recognition of some kind that they could not adapt to delivering there child. Those that choose life at bear minimum we can say to feel they could adapt. the economic burden, even if they were poor, did not strike them as too much to handle. the emotional stress, even if they are a little bit of a basket case did not strike them as too much to handle. And even if they lacked I. Q. points and knew it, it still did not deter them from delivering there child. They could adapt, and the child raised by them surely will pick up on some of that adaptation. The ones that have only there fearful reasons of there in-ability to handle delivering there child will spread nothing to the population, there offspring are dead and carry nothing to the rest of the population because they are no longer part of it. I admit though, this point does not stand on its own. Con could continue to argue for the adoption alternative and say the adoptive parents would have the same adaptation to feeling they could handle having the child as the biological ones. And this is potentially true, but to be honest its mostly a control issue. A child raised by there birth parent will simply learn the character adaptations from those parents and there's not much more to it than that. A child put up for adoption though has the variable of what they learn during there time in an orphanage. Of course this would not make any independent case inherently going to have problems learning the positive adaptations we want them to learn but a whole that variable may affect some cases. And since we are looking for a cut in population anyway for the overpopulation problem and the birth mom wanted it dead anyway why stop her? A parent has legal right to revoke there 17 year old's right to drive, why not have the legal right to revoke there unborn child life? There is nothing wrong with a woman killing a child that's dependent on her as defined by the still attached umbilical cord. It's not like that child has some divine right to its life since we know belief in the divine is just superstitious non-sense. The one reason my opponent gives for why a child must be allowed to live is its potential. Pay attention readers at this here, for I believe if I am to defend this debates resolution it rest on my ability to refute this. A beings potential at birth means very little. Hitler was a fetus once and his potential grew to be a dictator. fetus's have as much potential to be Jack the Ripper as it does to become Charles Darwin. I could just as easily argue that all unborn children should be put to death because they have the potential to spread hatred, ignorance and suffering into the world. I'd cite people like Jim Jones as evidence that the potential exist and my case would be just as strong as the one my opponent gave about their potential to add good to the world. If your being rational you cant say anything of the potential future actions of a fetus because it is too early to make anything out of that 'potential'. people with faces and histories though, you do have actual data to critique there potentials to say something for or against. The fear I suppose you have though is that we might be killing our next great world leader. This is absurd though, that kind of potential will still exist in other children out there that are born and live and we can teach them to grow on that particular potential. When you minus all the pregnant women that choose abortion, there will still always be children being born out there, and there will still be many in need of adoption for whatever reason, (mother died in child-birth, parents are executed because there Bonnie & Clyde, killed by thugs, died in war, taken away from parents because they were druggies and abusive, ect. .. ). Whatever born children make up the next generation, there potential will fulfill the needs of the world we are worried about losing in the aborted babies. And remember, there is no special reason any unborn child in particular should live for its potential, there is no God and they have no divine right to live out there potential that some divine creator gave them at birth with. They were simply because two people wanted to have sex and there life is sometimes a result of that. As long as the birth of children has not completely stopped in the population as a whole, who cares if an independent case is denied it's 'potential' to live and become Edward Teach . http://en.wikipedia.org...? My opponent just brushed off the Overpopulation case by saying a disease will take its due course and handle it. First off, I demand evidence that a disease could ever still do this, because I think hoping this will fix the population is just too much wishful thinking given our medical advancements. we have vaccines for practically any such thing that could come our way and when viruses that we have no cure for come its not long before we make something to handle the problem and it becomes old news. Are you still worried about how you will likely be one of the many to die of 'Bird flu'? I did not think so. What about the 'Swine flu'? surely the 'epidemic' that was suppose cause has killed someone you know if it didn't get you. Fact is the only epidemics that will cut the population down is famine and war that the overpopulation causes. My opponent say's it's better for people to die in famine and war than it is to die of abortion. This is ridiculous and the only reason given as to why it would not be is the 'potential' argument that I refuted. death by famine and war are far more inhumane and barbaric than the controlled death of a unborn child at a doctors sterile hands. Another thing about 'potential', there the potential of unborn is not of greater value of the geriatric. As long as your still suck'en wind, you still have 'potential' to save, give, and make. but one thing you have over the unborn is you can already tie your shoes and count by 2's. you already have many tools you have picked up that aid you in contributing to the world. It's not logical to favor your death over the death of a unborn child that knows nothing and does nothing as of yet.