Abortion in the 1st and 2nd trimester is immoral

Rebuttals:1. Human v Person My opponents main argument is all humans have a right to life, and a fetus is a person. His claims all rest on the biological arguments and scientific ones, this is a logical fallacy called the "begging the question". Biology and science have no governing over the issue, nor does society for the whole, rather the women itself. Now, let me diverge, I used this in my argument. A fetus resides in the body of a woman, her body, not his. Without the woman, he dies. But this is different then a young child, as a young child does not reside in the woman's womb. Now, lets take your position, pretend a fetus has a right to life. But we must ask does this right to life trumps a woman's right to her body and privacy? I ask my opponent, is abortion ok in rape, if the baby is deformed etc.? There is always controversy on whether a fetus is a human, the woman IS always considered a human with rights, hence we should favor the woman, her body, and her privacy. [1] So my opponent needs to prove a fetus' rights trump a woman's rights. My opponent claims that my arguments are wrong, as scientifically a fetus is a human, again, biology does not fully tie into morality, you must prove the fetus has worth amongst other things to be at a moral equivalent to a person. If we go by biology, a skin cell through DNA is a human, scratching your skin is therefore murder. Is itching an itch immoral? Being a human IS NOT enough to justify a right to life. But here is an essential question that refutes my opponents arguments AND is totally valid in a morality debate: What property to embryos own, and is it so any entity that is at the same status gets the right to life? This can be also countered this professors way, if your criteria is true (biologically) then a fetus that is missing half the brain (anencephalic infants) and are always end in death near after birth, then it would be immoral to abort the fetus, hence a dead fetus must live. [2] The argument means anything with human DNA or biological properties has a right to life. This morally is unsound and faulty. Before you can dish out the right to life card, morally an philosophically, one must look at the criteria for a human with rights:1) What properties are needed for a right to life2) When are these properties attained. [2]I showed the (5) Properties last round, the answer to #1 is those 5, unless my opponent can think of another logical grouping, and the answer too #2 is a fetus does not have these properties, unless my opponent can speak otherwise. My opponent then claims just because a fetus is like us it trumps social states, this is wrong in a morality debate, as then fetuses that are essentially dead have the same right to life, which is illogical. It is also faulty, as this too is a fallictic question begging response. If being defined as a species is enough, then we must also ask then why does this exclude animals form having a right to life, gotta ban eating meat now. [2] My opponents claims on a fetus is a member of the human species is not enough to prove that a fetus has a right to life, not at all, hence his whole argument is well, weak in a moral sense. My opponent then claims the mental state has no governance on whether or not a fetus is a human. But being part of the homo sapien species is NOT enough to prove a fetus is a human in the moral sense. The only argument that proves abortion is immoral in a moral sense is a fetus has the potential to be a person, you have not stated this, and if you do I will refute it. Essentially when arguing abortion in a moral sense a biological argument is not enough to serve anything as immoral. My opponent must prove a fetus (if he uses the biological argument) be included in the moral community. As this person claims, (Marry Anne Warren), genetics is not enough to make a moral case, but development of the mind and cultural characteristics do. [3] In other words, genetics plays no role in morality. 2. Does a fetus have a right to life?My opponent then falls under the same trap as last time, he says there are exceptions, its ok if it helps the woman. This concedes the right to life is not paramount, and womens rights can trump them. I will just quote:"Anti-choicers say that a fetus has an inherent "right to life." But many of them support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the woman's life, or even health. This clearly indicates that they believe the right to life of a fetus is negotiable, certainly not absolute or paramount. By compromising their "right to life" definition in order to accommodate a woman's rights, they inadvertently acknowledge that women's rights are more important than the "right to life" of fetuses. " [1] You conceding abortion is ok in that one circumstance cripples you, you basically admitted that a woman's health and life is above a fetuses, hence a fetus is not morally equivalent to a human You say:"I agree it would be wrong to ask a woman to forgo treatment, so if the fetus is younger than 21 weeks gestation, then I believe she should be allowed to abort if she wishes"That concedes your point, you say a woman's life is above a fetus'. My opponent says use contraceptives, but let pretend she is raped and the kid is alive, what do you do, abort or force her to keep it through out the 9 months and her having to remember the incident every time it kicks?CONCLUSION:My opponent essentially concedes, he says a woman's rights trump a fetus' (without saying it), and hence concludes a fetus does not have the same moral standing as a person. I have proven with valid philosophic arguments my opponent false, and that abortion is NOT immoral, not at all. VOTE A LA CON[1] http://www.abortionaccess.info... [2] http://spot.colorado.edu...[3] http://instruct.westvalley.edu...