Abortion should remain legal

He made some interesting points and in this round I aim to address them all. Let's get right into it. The Fetus and its Viability: Pro states “This is not entirely true, the fetus is not entirely capable of becoming an adult as it is entirely dependent upon the potential mother” (in reference to my previous argument). My original argument stated that the fetus was entirely capable of becoming an adult as long as an outside force did not prevent it (like the mother). This statement, therefore, does not render this untrue, but it brings up an interesting point on dependency. Pro equates this dependency of the unborn on their mothers to born infants. He then makes a clarification and says that an infant, unlike the unborn, can survive without the mother. This is entirely true, however the key here is dependency. The infant, like the unborn, are still entirely dependent on others in order to survive. My 2 month old, for instance, is incapable of cleaning himself up after he poops, let alone being capable to get food and drink or other basic necessities for himself. But if we consider these infants who are completely dependent on whoever is taking care of them to be deserving of basic human rights, than we cannot deny the unborn basic human rights based on their dependency on the mother. Furthermore, this kind of ideology of ownership over the unborn giving women grounds to kill them is deemed a weak argument even by those who are pro-choice. As the pro-choice philosopher Mary Anne Warren writes, “The appeal to the right to control one's body, which is generally construed as a property right, is at best a rather feeble argument for the permissibility of abortion. Mere ownership does not give me the right to kill innocent people whom I find on my property. ” Pro and Human DNA: In this section of Pro’s rebuttal he states that the DNA argument isn’t very convincing, and that even some hot dogs contain human DNA. I’d completely agree with the position that simply containing human DNA does not make something a human being. Skin cells contain human DNA, but no one would claim a skin cell is a unique human individual. However, I proposed the fact that the fetus contains human DNA as supporting evidence for the fetus’ human nature. My main argument I will reiterate: Does not the nature of the parents determine the nature of the offspring? If two cats mate, they create more cats. If two humans mate, they would, likewise, create more humans. This argument was not brought up in my opponent’s rebuttal, and it should be determined that he has therefore conceded the point. Pro and the Rape Argument: Pro states here that giving birth to the child may result in the woman being subject to financial stress, trauma, and may impact her career. These are all very real possibilities. However, it doesn’t really address the point. Certainly rape is a very traumatic event and every possible care should be given to the woman when she needs it. But it does not justify the killing of innocent life. I’m sure pro would agree, the woman should not be able to kill her born child if it was conceived in rape and is causing her difficulties. Likewise, if the fetus is indeed a human being, it should be protected by the law in a similar way. This argument comes down to the fundamental question of whether or not the fetus is a human being deserving of basic human rights. Pro and the Parasite Comparison: Here pro compares the fetus to a parasite. An interesting angle by pro. But I believe his comparison falls short. We’ll start with his definition for a parasite. In biology a parasite is, “An organism that is intimately associated with and metabolically dependent on another living organism (the host) for completion of its life cycle, and which is typically detrimental to the host. ” The fetus does not complete its lifecycle within the mother, but rather simply experiences the beginning of it. If it were a parasite, it would have implanted itself within the host for the ultimate purpose of reproduction, as we see in other parasites. Furthermore, many of you may remember from introductory biology classes that a parasitic relationship only exists when the host is being harmed. So, is the mother harmed by the pregnancy? In some cases, like with ectopic pregnancies, yes of course. But these cases are abnormalities. What needs to be asked is, what is the purpose of the uterus? Why do women have it if not to grow their unborn children? A parasite might implant itself in the host’s intestinal system or even their cardiovascular system. Is the heart or large intestine meant to be a house for worms? Of course not. But is the uterus meant to be the house for unborn children? Well, of course! In summary, the uterus is literally built for the purpose of nourishing the child until his/her birth. How then could it ever be equated with parasitism? Pro’s rebuttal of Sexual Responsibility: Here pro gives an analogy comparing sexual responsibility to the responsibility of car wrecks. What’s interesting in his analogy is that we actually do hold the party responsible for insurance and medical bills if he/she is the one who caused the accident (not entirely sure how this works in the UK where my opponent is from however). But I’d maintain that across our society people generally are held responsible for their actions. If they weren’t, there wouldn’t be any legal system. Pro goes on to state that childbirth and pregnancy can significantly impact the emotional and physical health of the woman. Whether or not this is as prevalent and serious as pro says they are, abortion has been known to cause many emotional consequences. In one study I found, women who had abortions were questioned on their emotional state 8 weeks after getting the abortion; 55% expressed guilt, 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disorders, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been describe medication to help their emotional state. 33% felt the need to become pregnant again to “make up” for their abortion, with 18% succeeding in this within the next year. In a study on the effects abortion has on teens, researchers found common symptoms in: self-reproach, depression, social regression, withdrawal, obsession with need to become pregnant again, and hasty marriages. And finally, “A 5 year retrospective study in two Canadian provinces found that 25% of aborted women made visits to psychiatrists as compared to 3% of the control group. ” Pro and His Acceptance of the Nazi Analogy: Aside from my initial shock that anyone would ever agree to do this, it is important to note that this debate is focused on the legal system. If pro had went around killing innocent disabled children calling it “mercy killing”, he would be a convicted felon, though he might be able to plead insanity (I'm kidding! ). All jokes aside, if pro really wishes to push his point here, he would need to argue against the current law that prohibits parents from killing their own disabled children. The analogy is meant to express the fact that these people can still find happiness in their lives, regardless of disease and disorder. In terms of personal experience, I personally know 2 people with one of these disorders, both of which are as happy as the next guy is. I myself have a disorder in alopecia universals, in which I cannot grow hair on any part of my body. After 6 years of dealing with this disorder, it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. If pro’s reasoning was valid, only people with perfect bodies could ever be truly happy. And I find the fact that pro believes he can determine whether or not someone is happy without even knowing them to be incredibly unnerving. Pro and the Foster System: In this section pro states that just because the majority of people in the foster system do not have psychological problems, this doesn’t mean it doesn’t increase the risk of it. True, but if the fetus is human life than abortion has a 100% rate of death. It would be more moral of our society to give our children the 70% chance of being without mental disorders than to give our children a 0% chance at life. Pro and the Mother’s Decision: Pro agrees with me in that it is neither I nor his decision as to whether the unborn should live, but is the mother’s. This, like so many other arguments we are discussing here, can only be understood once we have determined whether or not the fetus is a human life. If the fetus is a human life, than just as a mother cannot choose to kill her 2 year old without due process of law, so also she should not be able to kill her unborn child without due process of law. Limitations on Abortion: Pro’s argument can be summed up as this: A person is considered dead when their brain functions cease, therefore we should consider life to begin when brain function begins. A big problem with using this as the determinate for human life is that we have born people who are currently in a state of coma, in which they are brain dead. However we still consider them to be people and the law still protects them. I again contend that personhood is not granted for what we can do, but rather what we are. Pro asks shortly thereafter if I cannot accept 24 weeks (time after conception in which an abortion can be performed), can I accept 12 weeks? No, again personhood is granted to us because of what we are, not what we can do. References: Mary Anne Warren: . http://www.amber-hinds.com... Define Uterus: . http://www.dictionary.com... Define Parasite: . http://www.sciencedictionary.org... 2% Adoption Rate: . http://arcc-cdac.ca... Effects of Abortion: . http://www.abortionfacts.com... Modern Points about Conception: . http://www.lifenews.com...;