Abortion

As this is the fourth and final round I will comment on a few points then make my conclusion. “I’d also like to point out that it is completely fine on this site to copy and paste opening arguments that are ORIGINAL and CREATED BY THE POSTER.”---Midnight I wasn’t condemning the copy-paste, but was observing that more care should be taken when employing this tactic; “Cookie cutter” answers should always be thoroughly critiqued and revised to obtain optimal coherence and relevance. “I haven’t said that the unborn is alive, because in my view an unborn child is potential life, therefore the term “right to life” still applies here.”---M Life is matter that shows certain attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction---- http://www.britannica.com... The unborn is responsive, grows, metabolizes, has energy transformation and will reproduce. Therefore its alive. “I’d also like to address my opponent’s views on biased sources, which contradict themselves. First, my opponent tells me that bias is not wrong. “1. And who taught you bias is wrong?? Almost every website is biased. evolution.berkeley.edu is biased toward evolution, www.who.int/en/ is biased toward abortion and http://www.tacobell.com......... is biased towards Taco Bell!” Then, shortly after, they ask me to provide a source that isn’t biased. “Says who? Please document this assumption from a non-biased site or a peer-reviewed professional journal.” I would like my opponent to clearly state their view on biased sources in the next round”----M I perceive my humorous intent was missed. My full comment was: "The child will [probably] not experience a happy childhood"[if born of rape]---Midnight “Says who? Please document this assumption from a non-biased site or a peer-reviewed professional journal.”-----S My point was approaching sarcasm. As you noted, I already stated unbiased sites are rare. Therefore any site that refers to abortion, rape and the child’s happiness will more than likely be biased. “With immigrates (rape) Canada should always have the option for elimination” This analogy is incorrect, as immigration is regulated by the Canadian government, which means it is consented to by both parties, immigrant and the Canadian government. Rape is not consented to by both parties.”----M What about illegal aliens? Is it right to eliminate them?? “So the point “Raped women should always have the option for abortion,” still stands.”---M Not. Why kill the innocent baby?? If you are so abort-happy, kill the rapist!! The offspring of rape is still human. BTW, if the mother opted to birth the child, does she have the right to “abort” it 3 years later?? "A woman has a right to control over her body"---Midnight “Approx. 51% of babies are male. How can it be only her body if it"s male? And the baby has a father" ---S Here my opponent claims that a pregnant women’s body is not actually her own body. It doesn’t matter if the child is a male or female, the body in which it resides is the woman’s body.” The unborn is not the woman’s body. He has 50% chance of being male, has his own DNA, two arms, two legs, a heart, lungs, and half of him comes from his father!! The 13th amendment is a different subject that does not apply because you are not American. In conclusion, the child is a human and murder is not justified. Thanks for the great debate and I truly hope in the near future your abortion views will change. P.S. Isn’t it great your mother was pro-life??