Abortion should be illegal

A couple of final terms to close out my arguments: Parent: an animal or plant from which new ones are derived [1] Child: a son or daughter of any age [2] Draft: compulsory recruitment for military service [3] Rebuttal: As this is the final round I will attempt to be brief. As my opponent used no new sources in the last round, he simply restated arguments that have already been refuted. My round will clarify areas where he attempted to sow confusion. As previously noted my opponent still does not understand the difference between liberty and licence. As my opponent continues to argue the UN definition of torture applies to abortion I will reiterate: Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. [4] No further argument is necessary as his argument has been proven wrong. My opponent continues to argue that the government does not have the right to force us to help others. To add to my previous arguments there are several other obvious areas where the government does indeed force people to provide aid to others. 1) Income tax. The government imposes taxes on individuals. [5] These taxes are used to support the common good. Thus the government effectively forces you to provide a percentage of your labour in the general aid of others.2) The government can force you to fight for the general good of the nation by drafting you into military service. [3] 3) The government forces men who have fathered a child to provide financial aid to the raising of a child. Regardless of how you became a parent, you are required to pay child support. Canada's Child Support Guidelines is based on parenthood, whether the child is a result of a long-term relationship or a one-night stand. [6] On Wednesday, a Kansas judge ruled that a man who provided sperm to a lesbian couple in response to an ad on Craigslist must pay child support for the child born from the arrangement. Though he pleaded with the judge saying he never intended to be a father to the child, the judge found that William Marotta is, in fact, the child’s father and must pay child support as a result. [7] This is a condition directly related to specifically forcing the a citizen to provide a percentage of his labour in support of his child. My opponent argued that: “a person is not a parent till his/her child is born” As we have previously established, the unborn child is a human being. Scientifically, the parents are the ones whose gametes joined to form the child. Thus the definition [1] above holds true from fertilization until death. Additionally, following the definition [2] above the Child is always the child as it is the biological creation of the two parents from fertilization onwards. My opponent argues that: “legislative body can make laws against it but it does not mean: it will never happen, it may happen even though it is banned.” By extending this faulty argument, since we still have murders, thefts and rapes we should not have laws against these items, because those laws will be broken. This is a fallacious argument. Finally I will quickly address the expanded rich man argument. If the rich man had foreknowledge that his actions would endanger his friend, he could be found liable for his friends illness. If the person was a minor, he could be found liable for his minor friend’s illness due the minor’s inability to properly judge such things for himself. If giving his friend this drink could reasonably be foreseen to cause his friend harm (giving him methanol instead of ethanol) - even if he didn’t intend for it to harm - then yes he could be found liable for any negative results to his friend. If by giving the drink to his friend, caused an unknown reaction resulting in his friend harm then no, he would not have a legal obligation.Much of this falls under a Duty to Rescue [8] A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a partycan be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. In common law systems, it is rarely formalized in statutes which would bring the penalty of law down upon those who fail to rescue. This does not necessarily obviate a moral duty to rescue: though law is binding and carries government-authorized sanctions, there are also separate ethical arguments for a duty to rescue that may prevail even where law does not punish failure to rescue. In the common law of most anglosphere countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another. Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril. However, such a duty may arise in two situations:1. A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril.2. Such a duty may also arise where a "special relationship" exists. For example:a. Parents have a duty to rescue their minor children. This duty also applies to those acting in loco parentis, such as schools or babysitters.b. Property owners have a duty to rescue invitees but not trespassers from all dangers on the property. Final arguments The child has a natural right to be protected and provided for by its parents because it is impossible for the child and thus the race to survive otherwise. Logically speaking this must be true. Thus, intuitively, one cannot have a right that is fundamentally harmful to the species if everyone enforces this right. It goes agains all logic and natural law. As rights must logically be a fundamentally to the good of the species in nature, a right to abortion cannot be valid as it actively works against the fundament right to life we previously established. The principle of double effect details an effective means of determining whether an action is morally permissible. It gives 4 statements to which all must be true for an action be a morally valid. The nature of the act: The action must be either morally good or indifferent. The motivation of the act: The negative effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect. The circumstances of the condition. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect. The proportionality condition. The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect. The second of these four conditions is an application of the more general principle that good ends do not justify evil means. By this ethical framework we can see that abortion can never be ethical as the negative effect (the death of the child) is precisely the means by which the good effect (preservation of autonomy is achieved) Concluding argument We have established that the unborn child is a human being, that all human beings have equal rights, and that the right to life is the most fundamental right of all human beings. Additionally, it has been shown that parents have both a natural and legal obligation to provide for their children until the age of majority. It was further detailed how an abortion is a direct attack on the unborn child. Additionally, the right to enforce one’s liberties at the expense of an innocent 2nd party’s life is both fundamentally immoral, and a greater abuse of the 2nd party’s fundamental rights than that of the 1st party’s rights. Thus the act of abortion is fundamentally akin to murder in that it is an action that directly or indirectly targets an innocent human being resulting in her death. As such not only can abortion not be considered to be a right, but it has been shown to be wrong and immoral based on other legal and moral principles that we live by. For these reasons the current situation surrounding abortion is immoral by logic and natural law, inconsistent with other aspects of our legal system, and thus abortion should be illegal. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...; [5] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [6] http://www.childsupportlaws.ca... [7] http://www.medicaldaily.com... [8 ]http://en.wikipedia.org...— I would like to thank my opponent for a spirited debate. As this is my first formal debate I look forward to the comments from the judges. Finally I would ask the voters to take into account that my opponent’s first language isn’t english when considering grammar and spelling.