Abortion

I would now like to refute my opponents main argument and shall try to be as clear and as concise as possible. 1. Sticking to the definition of life (though my opponent has conceded that fetus's are living) I believe that there is no one definition of the beginning of life for all organisms. I do however believe there is a specific definition on an organism to organism basis (this covers bacteria and single celled organisms) Think of a dead man who had a heart attack, his tissue is living, his organs (minus the heart) are living, but the man himself is not. 2. My opponents main argument towards the continuation of abortion is that fetus's do not have rights as they are not rational. However as the law clearly states, a fetus is part of the human species "The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the --------------> species homo sapiens <---------------------, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. " However let us for now ignore this law and use my opponents argument of rationality equating rights. My opponent states two arguments that argue why a fetus cannot have rights 1. The fetus is not rational and therefore has no rights 2. The fetus is not a born American citizen and therefore does not have the right to life. A. In response to #1 My opponent argued that mentally handicapped people, and elderly people with dementia qualify as people who are rational. Therefore my opponent defines the basis of rights as an individual with any small part of rationality. Would my opponent also argue that those in a coma are completely rational? What about people who have no brain function at all who we determine "brain dead" but are currently living. If someone were to murder them it would be considered a crime. To abuse a brain dead person would be a horror. My second question regarding #1: "no experience outside of the womb. " How are newly born infants any more rational than what they were 8 hours before when they were a fetus? I really think you should do some research regarding the fetus's "experience inside the womb" this includes eating food, New research findings on the ability of a fetus to recognize its mother's voice and even distinguish it from other female voices confirms what scientists have speculated about for more than 20 years - that experiences in the womb help shape newborn's preferences and behaviour. Dr. Barbara Kisilevsky, a Queen's University professor of nursing along with a team of psychologists at Queen's and obstetricians in Hangzhou, China, found that fetuses are capable of learning in the womb and can remember and recognize their mother's voice before they are even born. Their research findings are published in the current issue of the international journal Psychological Science . http://www.sciencedaily.com... 2. B. Citizenship In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly declared in article three, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. " The United States is a member of the United Nations General Assembly, and thus abides and is subjected to their rules. This was unanimously incorporated by the assembly and by the United States. Furthermore, the chairman of this committee was Eleanor Roosevelt. The right to life is not only reserved to United States Citizens, but to humans in general. Thus, I cannot murder an illegal immigrant from Mexico and expect to get off scot free. I will be punished because every human bears the right to life. 3. No I am not advocating that sex should be reserved for procreation, not in the least. However a child must be considered a side effect of sexual activity. The woman's choice to be involved in sexual activity may result in a child and this should factor into her choice. If the woman does not choose to be involved in sexual activity, (rape) then I am fully in support of abortion. Just as a man smoking a pipe may result in cancer. Should a woman be "pressured from having sex" due to the remote possibility of having a child? No, but the remote possibility of having a child should be considered before doing so. I highly doubt if you would ever ask a mother who has a child if she considers her child as a "punishment" "Yes sex is a choice - forcing a birth is only a restriction - under your premise it is legally mandated remember - that is most definitely not freedom (no choice). " Killing a human life is murder. Let me give an example: Yes driving 100 miles per hour on a busy highway is a choice - putting speed limit signs on the highway is a restriction. Killing the police officer who happens to give you the ticket is murder. Yes laser eye surgery is a choice - the chances of being blinded are a restriction killing the faulty doctor is murder Yes plastic surgery is a choice - the chances of it being messed up are a restriction killing the surgeon is murder do you get my point? 4. My opponent further misunderstands what the morning after pill is. It is not "the pill" or birth control, or a contraceptive. It is only in case you -----forget to take contraceptives---- then you can take the morning after pill within 72 hours of unprotected sex. My opponent is assuming that the people having sex forget 100 times a year to wear a condom or use birth control. If that were to be the case I would concede my opponents point however this is not the case. And my opponent cannot argue that birth control or other contraceptives outweigh the cost of an abortion ( at $700 a pop) because people having sex would typically have to pay for multiple abortions every year. This argument diminishes my opponents about the cost. Also it does not infringe upon "18 years of personal liberty" adoption is always an option. The cost of buying a condom, the pill or the day after pill, "infringe on personal liberties" I think it infringes on personal liberties the same as a filter for a cigarette "infringes on personal liberties" The liberties of the human are exactly what I am in favor of. If you have to "infringe" upon personal liberties (aka purchasing birth control) of one person to gain the life of another ( human child), then I am in thoroughly in favor of it. 4. "Even upon birth the child does not have the full right to life" My opponent states that a child upon birth does not have the full right to life. This premise is sorely struck down upon the precedence in the court: ----LAUDERHILL, Fla. – Jail records show that a Lauderhill man accused of shaking his girlfriend's 10-month old son to -----death has been charged with murder. An 18-year-old charged with first-degree murder in the death of her 4-month-old son shuffled into court Monday afternoon PLANO, Texas - (KRT) - A 10-month-old girl died Monday after her mother cut her arms off, police said. The 35-year-old woman, who has suffered from postpartum depression, was charged with capital murder. BERKELEY COUNTY, WV - An infant was pronounced dead at Martinsburg City Hospital, and police have arrested his mother for murder. . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [murder- The unlawful killing of one ---->human<---- by another, especially with premeditated malice] "If you get pregnant you will in all likelihood by the time of discovery be in a position where abortion is not an option. " Conception can only occur during ovulation, 14 days after the woman's last period. If the woman did use birth control, condoms, or used the day after pill and still got pregnant, then my conjecture allows for abortion 3 weeks after conception. Meaning if the woman has not had her period in a month, she can take a pregnancy test and still has a week for an abortion.