Legality of Abortion.

Pro starts by defining two words: murder and person. He then claims that because the two are difficult to define the morality of abortion becomes an open ended debate. I will agree that the fetus that is aborted is not seen as a rights-bearing person, despite it being genetically human. The problem with this is it assumes that because the fetus is not as developed as for an example a toddler that it cannot be classified as a person. This is deeply flawed logic, there is no scientific objection to a teenager not being a human because it is not as developed as somebody in their 20s. Since fetuses carry human DNA and they are literally what we all were years ago and not part of something else the only rational position to take is that they are human. Pro then questions whether the fetus really carries human DNA. It does. Sources:http://www.dailymail.co.uk...http://www.contexo.info...Pro claims that if we assume that the unborn carries human DNA and if sperm cells and egg cells also carry it shouldn't they count as a human life. I have already wrote about this in the previous round so I will copy and paste it here again. 'Abortion is a completely different process to abortion since a male does not ejaculate pre-mature babies. To put it into more detail abortion is killing an entity that is growing into a baby. There is no such potential when egg cells and sperm cells are two entities separate of each other. A single sperm cell is not a member of the homo spins but when the egg and sperm connect they become one life form with his/her own nature. A nature that is distinct from it's parents E.g. the mothers eggs and the fathers sperm. The sperm is of nature that of the father and an egg equally bears the nature of the mother. When the egg cell is fertilised by the sperm, they become one and they starting bearing a human nature of their own, they become a real human life. -The destruction of a sperm does not kill the father. -The destruction of the egg does not kill the mother. In the process of abortion the new life form is destroyed. ' Next, pro claims that if he has proved that 1 and 2 are matters of opinion, nobody has to accept 3. The problem with this is anything can be a matter of opinion, if I propose an argument and somebody replies with 'Well, it's a matter of opinion and therefore nobody has to accept it.' All he has really shown is lack of knowledge and competence to disprove the argument. Pro has to prove that 1 and 2 are not sufficient enough reasons for 3 and 4 not to apply, he has failed at this. 'Pro-choice people legitimately believe fertilized eggs are not examples of life and this opinion gives them the moral right to abort embryos. I realize, as everyone should, that every person is entitled to their own opinion, therefore I reluctantly and unenthusiastically support said opinion. I believe everyone, even those who are pro-life, should accept that the opinion of abortion being immoral is just that: an opinion. And I believe no one should force their own opinions into any sort of rule or law.' Like I have stated above anything can become an opinion and therefore if a certain opinion is correct it should be enforced. Would the fact that some people may consider human sacrifices morally neutral or even morally right be sufficient enough to refuse to enforce laws against human sacrifices?. Lastly Pro says that illegalized abortion has no effect on the rate of abortions and that laws do not stop crime otherwise there would be no crime. First of all Pro fails to take into account the fact that the poorest nations around the world have the harshest abortion laws as I argued in the previous round and I do believe that I have also included a quote from an article that explained more abortions occurred when they were legalised? please don't hesitate to call me out on it if I'm wrong. In regards to laws having no effect on instances of crime I think that is a ridiculous claim, which Pro did not back up. One example I can think of straight away is the drug prohibition which lowers the number of users. Here is an extract from an interview with a Harvard Economist who talks about the possible effects of legalising drugs. 'Consumption of the more harmless drugs would probably increase. And there would be a larger number of people who occasionally take a drug. But when single malt whiskey became legal again after the prohibition of alcohol in the US ended, the whole country didn't become addicted to single malt. 'This economist is for legalising drugs but he does acknowledge the fact that prohibition lowers the number of users. Source:http://www.spiegel.de...