abortion right or wrong

I would like to first note the majority of his argument is irrelevant—it argues for the practicality of abortion, not the ethics. The resolution asks the question “is abortion right or wrong”, and ethical question. Although his argument will be responded to, I would ask voters to put more of a weight on moral arguments (in this case, his “first trimester” point, and my case will be mainly ethics). Rebuttals: 1. My opponent first argues the first trimester argument; an argument saying a fetus is not morally equivalent to a human. This argument will be refuted in my case. 2. My opponents second point, arguing a fetus is not developed enough to be a person but is a human, shall also be refuted in my case. 3. Actually, millions of parents want to adopt, and most children get adopted in the USA. The amount of parents owning an adopted child was cut in half after Roe v Wade, not because of parents not wanting children, but there not being enough children. If abortion were to be banned, adoption would be another option. Further, there are anti-abortion pregnancy crisis centers that give counseling and financial support to people with unwanted children. All of these alternatives could sustain abortion [1]. 4. Interestingly, legalized abortion has done little to improve abortion, and gynecologists have found the margin of error is actually fairly high. Even if we accept my opponent’s argument, many affects can be detected later. Many studies have found an abortion-breast cancer link. One famous abortionist—who works in my town (side note: his wife is being sued because one of her abortion patients died) has admitted all late and second trimester abortions will likely experience one complication. And first trimester abortions increase cancer risks (as stated). Saying abortion is safe is a leap of faith [2]. 5. As I will explain in my case, a fetus is a human is morally equivalent to fully grown humans. So, now, I give this analogy: lets say a rape victim gets pregnant, and has the baby. Four years later, she hates the baby and has depression. Should she be allowed to abort the baby? No. If the right to life is proven (as I will prove in my case) rape should be no exception to abortion [3]. 6. My opponent under contraception has essentially argued killing a human is moral because a woman has made careless mistakes… 7. My opponent has argued the slippery slope fallacy. I am opposed to abortion but have no opinion on contraceptive rights. Ireland has banned abortion but contraception is illegal. Further, the Roe v. Wade court case was not founded on the constitution, they merely assumed it a 9th amendment right (which is debateable [4]). 8. Abortion should not be a state sanctioned procedure, as it promotes murder. War should only be perused if there is no other option, my opponents analogy actually proves my point that abortion should be a restricted procedure. 9. See point 3. 10. On many issues, the APA have distorted facts and misquoted studies. The largest most credible studies have shows 2% of women with an abortion have post abortion syndrome. And a large other percentage obtains other disorders, and the majority exhibit some regret over their actions [5]. 11. Public opinion is irrelevant. 12. In my opponents pro and con section, he says many women still support their decision. I agree, many do, however I have given proof that the vast majority of them exhibit some regret. 13. Yes, a women has to bear the baby for 9 months. This has little to do whether or not abortion is justified. A fetus, scientifically, is a different person from its mother a few days after conception. 14. Abortion is justified to save the mothers life; everyone agrees on that. 15. Interestingly, doctors have noted “it has been my constant experience that [child] disability and unhappiness do not necessarily go together. ” And, instead of giving a personal experience with a child that was like this, I will give an empirical point as personal stories aren’t always 100% accurate “Many parents have aborted their babies because doctors told them that their children would be severely handicapped. Others I have met were told the same thing, but chose to let their babies live. These parents were then amazed to give birth to normal children. ”[6] 16. Are we being fair to the child by killing it? Interestingly, basic statistics and many academic studies show abortion increases child abuse. Allowing babies to get aborted actually degrades the social view that children should be protected, increasing abuse rates [7]. 17. The availability of abortion does not make an action right or wrong. Case It is an undeniable fact a fetus is a human, from the first moment of conception [8]. The question is simple, is a fetus morally equal to a human. If yes, then I win this debate, and killing it would be wrong. If not, my opponent can win. However, my opponent did not touch upon the subject, he merely stated there is a difference. And I agree, however do these differences disqualify a fetus? No. I shall explain: Size: Irrelevant to ones value as a person, size has no moral bearing on personhood Level of development: Being less developed does not make someone less valuable. If this were true, people with mental disabilities would have less value (morally) then a “normal” person. Environment: Where you are is irrelevant to moral worth. Dependency: Irrelevant. Are the elderly, disabled, mentally disabled people inherently worth less? Not at all. These are the only differences from a fetus and a human. My argument goes as follows: P1: It is prima facie immoral to kill a human being. P2: Abortion kills a human being. C1: Therefore, abortion is prima facie immoral. (wrong). [9] As Clinton Wilcox, a DDO member (Keytar Hero) writes on his blog, “Human beings are uniquely valuable based on the kind of thing they are, humans (that is, members of species Homo Sapiens). I do not mean that humans are valuable simply for being human (as opposed to being a dog, cat, etc. ). But human beings are valuable due to their inherent nature as rational, moral agents. The burden of proof must always be on the one wishing to take human life. . .. The only thing we all have in common that makes it as wrong to kill one human as to kill another is our common humanity. Ergo, it is unjustified to kill someone without provocation. ”[9] Due to the fact science supports the idea that a fetus is a human, the fetuses ability to become a rational agent makes it’s killing unjustifiable. We are the only beings (that we know of) that are inherently rational agents, killing such a life form would be immoral, and therefore “wrong”. I will give the more common argument: Let me do a more proper defense of the argument: 1. This premise has already been defended; the humans inherent capability for rational thought. Although babies are not rational being yet, they have a capability to become such a thing, so is a fetus. Killing an underdeveloped person or a baby is considered immoral, killing a fetus should also be considered immoral. See the quote from Clinton Wilcox for the full defense. 2. Abortion kills a human being, as NARAL (an abortion advocacy group) admits, “There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole. ”[8] C. If premise one holds true, which I have proven it does, and point two is agreed upon by my opponent (it has, my opponent stated “Human life occurs at conception”) then the point holds true. Abortion is immoral, “wrong”, and the rape justification does not hold up. Only to save the life of the mother, saving one life is better than none. My opponents argument has crumbled, and I have proven abortion is “wrong”, winning the debate. . http://www.debate.org...