Abortion should be banned.

I didn't quite expect this avenue of the debate to come up, Quite frankly. A lot of what my opponent just brought up (mostly in the first paragraph but also in several other areas in his argument) seems to deviate from the main focus and actually turns into more of a question in semantics. Now, Re-reading my own argument thoroughly I don't exactly see where my definitions or my conceptualization of an unborn fetus was improperly explained. However, I'll run by the assumption that I did not lay the parameters of my argument clearly enough so now I will reiterate. "Your profiles states you are agnostic and support Tottenhum Hotspur. Meaning you are a non-theist living outside the USA. " Originally I did not intend to address this because it's outside the main focus of the debate but I feel that clarifications are needed. First of all, Agnostics are not always strictly 'non-theists'. There are many branches of agnosticism where the practices vary and the application of God differs. I come from a roman catholic family and the details of such do not matter in this debate. So any assumption that I do not to some/any/or in the greatest degree understand or follow religious pretexts on the subject of abortion should be left out. Just to make that clear. (Also, I know I'm not American. But what's the whole deal with Americans not being able to support European Football Teams? Weird logic if you ask me. The MLS is growing these days you know. Haha. ) But now, Onto the facts. Case-by-Case Analysis Case One Argument - Unborn babies | Human Beings First of all, Bringing up the definition of what is 'human being' does absolutely nothing to help your case at all. Because this does absolutely nothing to distinguish unborn babies from babies that have just been born. You're advocating for abortion up to 20 weeks in pregnancy. At 19 weeks, The baby already has a developing heart, Brain and spine. What part of this definition does the unborn fetus at 19 weeks not qualify for? There is considerable mental development, They will soon develop their vocal cords providing the ability to speak and walk after they are born. So where exactly is the line drawn that differentiates a baby before 20 weeks of pregnancy and one that is in the last trimester according to your definition? My opponent has neither clarified nor expanded upon where this distinction lies. This is a major analytical loophole in his line of argumentation. "You are not being consistent here. If you cared consistently about human life then you would consider masturbation mass murder" So the word of the day today folks goes to 'consistent'. My opponent has made it his mission to point out apparent inconsistencies in my argumentation with very twistable semantics. Once again, I shall make my point clear for my opponent to understand. If my first speech did not make this clear enough, I made it clear that the baby becomes a potential human being AFTER fertilization. This means that the process is already underway, And the cells are already multiplying within the mother's womb. Apparently he thought he was on something so he proceeded to blurt out six lines of this analogy which honestly is nothing more than a pointless semantic brought up in place of any real eviddence. "If you wanted a unborn baby do die without feeling pain it would need to happen before 20 weeks. This provides a point for me because if the unborn baby feels nothing then we are not actually making the procedure painful. " "This has got to be a joke. A potential life is not yet born or can function in society but an already functioning member was put into a coma is somehow the same? It is not. A baby which is not yet alive is a fetus or a clump of cells. " I'm taking it that from these two arguments my opponent believes that a baby is 'alive' once it develops its sense to feel pain. From this I've established a couple of main points. One, My opponent is quick to jump on a dangerous precedent because of all the things that could quantify life, He chooses to go for the ‘not yet born’ argument. So according to you then babies who are in the last trimester should also be aborted as per the mother’s choice? After all, As you’ve said time and time again, The mother’s choice should not be taken away from her. And yet you bring in half-baked notions of what a living person constitutes of and then say you’ll make an exception at 20 weeks because of the sensory pain receptors a child develops. Again, Sensory receptors are linked to the neural network which connect the body to the brain. The brain is constantly developing as I’ve said. And my opponent has been running his debate in two separate paths because he’s claimed that all potential babies are still not considered human beings but made an exception for babies in the last trimester because they feel pain. This is a dangerous notion to go with because two, There are a lot of studies to show and dispute (as mentioned in my sources below) that a baby can feel pain even before 20 weeks. Because sensory receptors grow as early as 4 weeks into pregnancy, Babies that have abnormal growth hormones (marginal yet still relevant) could possibly feel pain between 4-16 weeks of pregnancy. That’s why a lot of abortion centers prevent abortion after 12 weeks because of that notion. Feel free to dispute. “The best you have is your thoughts without justification that can be done with evidence or explanations that are consistent. ” You have still not explained at all where I have not been ‘consistent’ without bringing up obscure semantics. I have routinely followed what I have stated whereas you will see as I’ve pointed out that there are a number of areas in which you have contradicted yourself. Case Two - Choice Argument - Role of the State | Mother's Choice "This might be a false dichotomy but there are the only two choices for abortion. The government should not have this much power. It leaves to much to corruption and if the leader wills it he can do what he wants due to the amount of power you allowed President to use" I don't think I've quite heard the term of 'abortion corruption' before in my life. I would prefer if you elaborate on how exactly this works before instilling paranoia simply because you displease of the States role in protecting society. "You want abortion banned as an absolute. Since you are not consistent when the life of the mother is threatened it has ceased to become an absolute" This is beyond a doubt a completely ridiculous point to bring up. I made it clear at the start of the debate that one exception will be made. I did not advocate for an 'absolute', I advocated for a complete ban on abortion cases that were not life threatening. If that wasn't clear to you then you shouldn't have accepted the debate. "should live with the consequences of her mistakes even if she did not know what they were" Sex ed is routinely taught to children both by the schools and by the parents. If she did not know by 16 and got pregnant then clearly that is either the fault of the schools, The parents or her own ignorance. Either way that can be rectified through more rigorous teaching methods, Better parenting or being a little bit more open minded. '16 and pregnant' is a show that often shows ignorance in teens who were clearly not thinking about the consequences of unsafe sex. That is not the fault of the child. If I murder someone and then claim that it was a 'mistake' and that I'll never do it again I cannot simply go unpunished. I have to deal with the consequences of my actions. The same way a lot of 16 year olds who chose not to be smart but knew exactly what they were doing will have to learn from them the same way. Case Three - Rape "That is the slippery slope fallacy. " "Not saying why this is bad instead say it will lead to bad things. " The ironic thing is that I was bringing up the slippery slope fallacy. It's clear you did not pick up on what I meant when I was talking about this so I will elaborate on that stance. What I mean is that by making an exception for the 'marginal' amount of rape cases that lead to pregnancy, It sets the precedent that a lot of pregnancy related cases that were out of wedlock will suddenly become rape cases for the convenience of the mother. Rape just like any crime has to be proven in court. Court cases take a long time (most if not all more than 6 months, Well within pregnancy) so to follow the assumption that the woman was raped is dangerous in that it teaches women that if they want the abortion all they have to do is scream rape even if they weren't raped. THAT is the real slippery slope fallacy. The loophole in the pro-choice rape argument. I am not disparaging the opinion of women that were raped, I am simply saying it cannot be the exception. Closing points "If you cannot enforce the law why are you advocating for it in the first place? It is basically a meaningless law that people can choose to follow. " The law will be enforced. I am simply saying you can't stop 100% of abortions because OBVIOUSLY some people will find ways around it if they have to. But on the whole it will be effective and stop a majority of abortions. It is by no means 'meaningless' and unless you want to prove that more than 50% of the population will get around it then pipe down. Also if you've noticed I did not mention my opponent's point about Terri Schiavo simply because I did not want this debate to delve into euthanasia more than abortion. But to make one simple point, Terri Schiavo is one case. If someone is in a coma/vegetative state for an indefinite period of time where they could possibly wake up and regain their senses, Is it right to choose on their behalf? Again, Talking about this will deviate from debate. But if you want we can debate euthanasia after this by all means.