Abortion

This was their first debate on DDO, and I welcome them to the site, and congratulate them on finishing their first debate. Now, I will move on to some rebuttals, then a closing statement. My opponent showed how the unborn is alive, according to a general definition. However they fail to show how the unborn has a right to life. As I had mentioned before, in arguments unrefuted by Con. That when it is impossible for the fetus to live independent of the mother’s body [fetal viability,] then it does not have a right to life, as it is a burden to the woman’s body, and could not exist without it. Next, my opponent goes back to defending their “abortion rights and country’s rights” analogy. But only responds to my rebuttal about immigrants, and doesn’t refute it, but simply brings up another point, therefore we can assume that all arguments I made against the analogy were dropped, so they still stand, and the analogy does not. But my opponent talks about illegal aliens, and asks “is it right to eliminate them. ” Illegal immigrant A foreigner who enters the U. S. without an entry or immigrant visa This analogy is also incorrect, because the US gov’t has taken action concerning illegal immigrants, for example the Bush administration proposed to give illegal immigrants guest worker status, and citizenship opportunities. The key point in this, is that the government makes the final decision on illegal immigrants, and decides whether or not they stay. Since my opponent is arguing against abortion, and is against a woman deciding, this analogy is incorrect, as the government does indeed take action on illegal immigrants, and it’s their choice as to which actions to carry out. The unborn is not the woman’s body. He has 50% chance of being male, has his own DNA, two arms, two legs, a heart, lungs, and half of him comes from his father! ! My opponent has missed the point of this statement. Again, I was arguing for fetal viability. If the unborn is unable to survive independent of the woman’s body, then it is a part of the woman’s body, and the woman can decide whether or not to keep it. The woman’s body isn’t simply a container for a fetus. The fetus is intertwined and connected to a woman’s body, and cannot survive without it, therefore it is a part of the woman’s body, and its rights are not above those of the woman herself. Not. Why kill the innocent baby? ? If you are so abort-happy, kill the rapist! ! The offspring of rape is still human. BTW, if the mother opted to birth the child, does she have the right to “abort” it 3 years later? ? " First off, my opponent doesn’t even address the fact that by forcing a woman to undergo a pregnancy, you are saying that it doesn’t matter whether or not she consented to being impregnated, and her body is simply a container for the fetus, and she doesn’t have any rights over it during this time. Also, if the mother birthed the child, at that point IT CAN SURVIVE INDEPENDENTLY. This is where fetal viability comes to play again, the child has rights now because its body is capable of functioning on its own. When the fetus is completely dependent on its mother’s body for support, it is the mother’s decision whether or not she wants to keep this burden [I’m using the word burden without any emotional appeal, I’m not saying in any way that the burden of childbirth is a bad thing] attached to her body. Thirteenth & Fourteenth Amendment My opponent completely drops these arguments on the basis that I’m a Canadian. This is ridiculous, my opponent doesn’t even bother to explain why this is an acceptable reason to drop arguments. Not to mention that it was my opponent who instigated this debate, and at the beginning they stated - Abortion is morally wrong and barbaric. The unborn child has rights as an American (obviously for Americans) and a God-given right to live. – My opponent fully stated that this debate is “obviously for Americans. ” Then later, when I present my fourteenth amendment argument, they state - I was surprised you mentioned the 14th amendment because according to your profile you are Canadian. – And when I presented my argument for the thirteenth amendment they said - the 13th amendment is a different subject that does not apply because you are not American. My opponent dropped all of these arguments stating that they do not apply “because I’m Canadian. ” But they do apply, because they are American, and my opponent, who created the debate, stated that the debate was concerning the USA. So these 2 arguments, along with a number of other’s that my opponent dropped/did not refute, still stand.