Abortion

My opponent has forfeited every round of this debate, so I merely need to provide a single contention that will go unrefuted. I will, however, address the first thing he said: "I feel everyone should be given the opportunity to live and abortion is taking away that opportunity from little unborn children. "The first piece of this argument is that everyone should have the opportunity to live. That's relatively uncontroversial. However, how broadly do we define "everyone? " He claims that abortion is taking away the lives of "unborn children. " At what point do you define a fetus as a child? CON has given us no reason to take this leap, so clearly we would accept that there's a point at which abortion is justified, or at least circumstances in which we could conceive of it. There's also the issue that we as a society DO NOT give "everyone" the opportunity to live. That is the norm, indeed, but we consider it relatively uncontroversial to -- legally -- respond to someone who is threatening our lives with equal force. Many conservatives, even so-called pro-lifers, justify the death penalty and warfare, which surely there is a case for in some instances. My case here is not that living isn't normatively good because it is -- and, trust me, I am not endorsing or advocating murder of any kind. The point is that we will make exceptions in certain scenarios, namely when our lives our in danger. In the case that a mother's life is threatened, having an abortion could be the only option to preserve her only life. She isn't maliciously committing a murder, nor is she a murderer. With that, I'm now going to offer my contentions. C1) Extreme CasesSubpoint A. Self-Defense (Exception for life and health of the mother)This is the point I made earlier; if your life is threatened, you have the right to respond such that you protect yourself. Having an abortion is not malicious in this case because, unfortunately, a life is going to be lost. It's certainly best if we could preserve both lives, but without the mother, the fetus wouldn't survive. Therefore, it is best that the choice be left to the mother. Subpoint B: Rape and IncestThese cases should be fairly obvious: the woman as a victim of a violent, traumatizing assault. As a result, she deserves the right to determine her own future and how she will proceed with her own life. Being forced to carry the child to term for 9 months poses a massive physical, emotional and financial burden on her. She should only take on the burden if she herself has decided that it is best for her. C2) Life =/= Child There is morally gray area over what is a life and what is a child. For instance, fetuses cannot feel pain until 29 weeks [1. . http://tinyurl.com...] and even that is highly contested [2. . http://tinyurl.com...]. Therefore, there is a gray area as to when we actually will define a fetus as a "child," and it is pertinent that sentience be our guide. C3) Morality is SubjectiveThe notion that life begins at conception, and thus personhood begins at conception, is flawed for a number of reasons. First it attempts to impose a religious position on people either of different faiths or no faiths. Second this view can be contested due to the fact that zygotes often miscarry in the first trimester. Is miscarriage the equivalent of murder? Most people would say "no. " It is clear that this issue should be subject to individual person's consciences, in consultation with their famileis, clergy, etc. If there is no consensus over whether abortion is categorically wrong -- be it by virtue of religious differences of even extreme cases -- then it is not objectively immoral, meaning that my opponent's position cannot possibly hold. C4) Bodily Autonomy This is similar to the last point. Banning abortion would impose a significant strain on a woman and force her to share her body with a fetus for 9 months, which in may cases she didn't plan or doesn't want to carry to term. Why would my opponent want to force her to carry it to term? C5) Black Market Abortions are More DangerousWhile many people who are genuinely opposed to abortion may be well-meaning, they fail to factor in that banning abortion will not spell an end to abortion. Women will still be able to attain them via back alleys. The difference is that abortion in this case would be much more dangerous, which means that the lives of the mothers would also be at risk. Why would my adversary want this? C6) There are better ways to reduce abortion Providing contraception or making sexual education available to teenagers is a much better, more effective, and less intrusive way to reduce the number of abortions. It recognizes that it is unavoidable that some teenagers are going to have sexual relations with another. It isn't encouraging it or endorsing it, but merely preparing ahead of time that the resulting pregnancy won't ruin one of their lives.