Abortion

First, as an overview to my opponents case, you can group his arguments, because they all center around the rights of the fetus, primarily the right to life. However, rights are not inviolable when they interfere with the welfare of society as a whole or with that of another individual. Otherwise, people would be free to murder at will, because of freedom of action. So, we can vote Pro just based off of that, but I answer his arguments individually further down. "Okay, I see what you are saying. The woman has right to her own body. Her baby, her choice. Why then does the fetus not get a voice? The fetus's body is more its own than the mothers! The fetus, at the time of most abortions, can pump its own blood, move, and do many things we humans can do born. You say at the bottom, ". .. I believe that people have the right to do whatever they wish to their bodies," yet you are not giving everyone the opportunity to choose. Now, the fetus does not have a voice. The fetus cannot say whether he wants to die or not. However, we have many clues that point to the conclusion that fetuses don't like being sucked to death. (first link I list)" ====== On the contrary, I would say that the fetus does not posses it's own body. It inhabits the mother, derives sustenance from her, cannot leave her without dying, unless it is ready to be born. It is not an independent organism, and as such, does not have an independent voice. ====== "Well, first, refer to the video above once again. Secondly, I want you to ask yourself, "Would I be happy if I were the fetus in the situation of abortion? " Let us assume a fetus can at least feel the emotion of happiness or despair. (Now, please -- answer honestly. If you were about to be killed in a similar way to a fetus, would you be "happy? ")" ===== First, I disagree with the premise that a fetus can feel happiness or despair, but, if I were to accept it, I do not think I would feel happiness or despair because I would have no knowledge of what was about to happen. ======== "Quoted from abortionfacts. com: Do you believe the new "ethic" should be that we kill the suffering or burdensome? Some of these cases are tragic, some are also inspirational. We cannot assume the responsibility for killing an unborn child simply because the child has not yet been seen in public. The child's place of residence does not change what abortion does - kill a human being. " ======== This has nothing to do with the suffering or burdensome. First, I deny the premise of a fetus' humanity. Fetus' are not able to survive if independent from one particular source of nutrients. Humans are. Second, humans can, at least in a primitive way, express emotions which other humans can interpret. Fetus' have never been shown to do so. Secondly, however, and this is a point I will refer to later, there is a difference between what I will call a willing and an unwilling parasite. If someone wishes to take care of people who would not be able to do so by themselves, that is fine. But when the person in question has no choice in the matter but is obligated by law to maintain that parasite, there is an issue. ====== "A fetus isn't killed because of what it has or hasn't done. It is killed for convenience. I am morally absolute on the fact killing a 'clean' baby (One who hasn't sinned or done wrong by our society's standards) shouldn't be legal. " ======= So you are certain that there is absolutely no situation, no matter how outlandish, ill-conceived or just plain unlikely, that would make it moral to kill a baby? ======= "Would you kill a baby 10 seconds before it came out of the womb? 10 seconds after? " ======= Personally? No I would not. When I am talking about abortion, I talking about the time fairly early in the fetus' development, not just before it comes out the womb, which is something of a gray area(what is the actual moment of birth? ). ======= "Have you heard of a beneficial parasite? ("Symbiosis"? ) Well, the fetus can be a symbiotical relation. For instance, it can raise his/her mother when s/he grows up. He can provide joy. A fetus is a parasite in the sense that it sucks from the mother. However, it is a parasite that will become a human in less than one year. It is a parasite that rarely kills. It is a parasite that has rights. It is not a tapeworm, it is a fetus. " ========= First, what you are saying is that the relationship only becomes symbiotic AFTER the fetus is born, not during the period when it can be aborted, which is what we are talking about. But Second, refer back to my distinction between willing and unwilling parasite. If the mother is willing to take care of the fetus, then yeah, no issues. But if she is not and never wanted the child in the first place, where does society derive the authority to tell her, it does not matter whether you like it or not, you must go through the painful process of birth, then raise this child, including all of the financial costs that incurs, because the other option, which would have a better outcome for everyone, is disliked by some of the population? . ========== "I am dependent on MY mother. I need her to cook for me (I tried to cook once; I am now on the Fire Dept's bad boy list. ) I need her to pay for the house and work (My family is divorced). I need her to support my brother and I. Does this mean I am not human? " ========= Nope. You are perfectly human. I am not saying dependency removes humanity, I am saying it removes a lot of rights (for instance, while [if] you are under the age of 18, at least in the United States, basically your entire life is subject to legal parental control). My arguments against including fetus' as human are elsewhere. So, to recap. My opponent has provided no real alternative philosophy by which to judge this debate, so we use the one I have provided of utilitarianism. This means that in order to decide the winner in this round, we look to which side best provides for greatest happiness. That side is clearly Pro, because it allows for the option of preventing unhappiness in the parent, child and society as a whole, while the Con forces the child to be born, under the idea that being a miserable hobo is better than not being alive to become a miserable hobo. Remember, if I can show any instance where a moral absolute would not hold true, we reject that absolute. The choice is clear.