Abortion

"Con states that I ignored their 4 characteristics. This is false. I have demonstrated that their argument fails under both of our definitions of life. I have also proven that you ought to buy my definition of life over con's one since I provided sources." No, I established that they fit all of these characteristics, save reproduction, you said that a fetus is not alive because it cannot reproduce. I rebutted this by asking you a very simple question; "If this is so, doesn"t that mean that children that haven"t reached puberty are not alive?" You failed 3 times to answer this very simple question. I got my 4 characteristics of life from my Biology class. "Con fails to understand the parameters set. They also act contrary to their position. They present a definition of life which sets the parameter that it must be able to reproduce (bare in mind that con introduces this in their parameters too). They then contradict themselves and say that reproduction should not be a parameter for considering life because children who haven't gone through puberty cannot reproduce. I will make the same clarification that I made before. The parameters used to define life aren't used individually, they are used to define whether the entire human race is living. The answer to this is yes because the large majority of all humans will eventually be able to reproduce and the large majority can. Killing children isn't acceptable to their sentience and consciousness and due to the fact that they will be able to reproduce in their current state as human beings." Pro is contradicting himself, he says here that children who have not yet reached puberty are alive because they will be able to reproduce in the future. Is this not the same for a fetus? If a fetus is left to develop long enough, won"t it be able to reproduce eventually too? "I proved that the fetus cannot respond to stimuli. Con states that I am wrong because he said reacts not responds. This is a poor rebuttal since they are both synonyms. I could have said that the fetus cannot react to stimuli and it would have meant the same thing as responds to stimuli. The fetus cannot react and respond to stimuli [3], can Con please respond to this sufficiently now." The difference between "responds to stimuli", and "reacts to stimuli", yes, is very similar, except "responds to stimuli" indicates that the reaction is noticeable. As "respond" indicates that there is a recipient, there is no such recipient in "react." "I said that the fetus is developing to become a human. Con states that this means that all men under the age of 33 are also developing. This a key issue that I'd like to address. The fetus is developing TO BECOME a human being. Babies, children, teenagers and young adults are developing AS HUMANS. They are still humans whereas the fetus is not." The issue with this argument is that you are stating that a fetus is only a human after it is born. I stated that the only difference is the extent of development, and what level of development determines you being a human is only an opinion, and cannot be proven. That a fetus"s genetics is human genetics, that a fetus fits all the definitions of life, and that a fetus can feel pain, that can be proven. "Con excludes the main elements of libertarian philosophy which consist of two beliefs: 1. The government ought to have less power and make less restrictions. [6][7]. 2. The individual is the most important member of society and their opinions and rights ought to be prioritized to the highest level of their ability to do so [6][7]. Life is important in libertarianism however less government restriction is also extremely important factor and by preventing somebody from having an abortion is a restriction that libertarians ought to avoid at all costs [7]. As my contentions have described, this is a violation of the women's equality and human rights." The government is here to protect people"s rights, born or unborn, when someone wants to violate these rights, not only does the government have the power to stop it, they have the obligation to do so. "By preventing the women from having an abortion you violate the women's right and you also violate libertarianism. Being against abortions violates the two most important libertarian ideologies, this means that it is an overall violation of libertarianism. Con provides no alternative framework and mine still stands, you ought to vote Pro baed solely on the premise that under my framework abortion is morally permissable." For one your framework is anything BUT morally permissible, it is morally insane. Let"s examine Pro"s excuse for abortion, he says that; "Because men do not have to deal with the hormonal issues associated with pregnancy, that women are being treated unequally, therefore we must allow them to commit abortion so they can be equal to men." This is the panicle of ignorance in liberalism, to go to war against biological gender differences, call it "gender inequality", and use it to justify atrocities such as this. Biological gender differences is NOT gender inequality, it is the natural order of things and if you don"t like it, DEAL WITH IT. "The answer to this question is that the fetus isn't alive and it doesn't have an opinion. No matter whether you're for or against abortion everybody acknowledges that the fetus isn't able to formulate opinions." So my opponent admits that the fetus is NOT trespassing on the mothers body because it did not choose to be there, and if the fetus is NOT a product of rape then the mother chose for it to be there, and CANNOT change her decision seeing as though the fetus is dependent on her to live now. "Con's old man analogy is faulty. He fails to consider financial issues but that isn't the only problem. He forgets that the fetus doesn't care if it's on the boat or not, neither does it care if it on board or thrown off because if the boy represents the fetus then this boy must also not be able to think or have opinions [8]. I have also demonstrated that the fetus isn't alive. This means that con's analogy based on the premise that all possible outcomes and situations haven't been analyzed and the fact that con hasn't acknowledged that the fetus cannot think or forumlate opinions, means that the analogy fails. I do not advocate infanticide / killing children, the scenarios are completely different as I have already proven." Then the boy is asleep, and cannot chose or formulate opinions as he does not know he is on board either. Additionally, if the mother does not want to take care of the child, pawn it off to someone else! "Con's rebuttal to the fact that most abortions are done at the stage where the fetus is DEFINITELY not alive. The ebryo is less developed than the fetus and cannot feel pain or think or respond to stimuli etc." If it has grey matter, it can think. "Con makes the mistake of calling the fetus a human. The stages begin with the fertilization of the sperm and egg, the embryo, the fetus, then the human. There is a distinguishable difference between the fetus and the human." I could never find out how they do that. "I still advocate the fact that we must look at things as a whole and looking at people with disabilities is not applicable in classifying life as people with disabilities still belong to the same species as us." "Con's next rebuttal is subjective. He states that abortion isn't a right. Life is. It is still under his BOP to prove why. Until this is done there is nothing to refute. This is all bare assertion." I don"t need to prove that abortion is not a right, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it IS a right, if you cannot then it is established that abortion IS NOT a right. I also don"t need to prove that Life is a right, it is SELF-EVIDENT, that you are entitled to Life, Liberty, and Property. "Con says that illegal abortions should be punished but doesn't refute the argument that says that the problem won't be solved anyway. I have shown that in places where abortion is illegal, illegal abortions still occur. The consequences are much worse than what Con suggests as a result of these illegal abortions. Sometimes the baby and mother die or are severely injured in the process. If you legalize abortions then people won't be inclined to do it illegally and they will do it legally - ie. safely." I understand this argument, but it is wrong. With things like booze or Marijuana it is better to be legal, because the demand will be higher if it is illegal. But there is a point where this does not apply, a mother that would put herself in danger to have her child be cooked alive by corrosive chemicals, should be punished harshly, so that no one would try it. "Con is contradictory. At first they say that the most important right is life and emphasize that life is extremely important and that aborting the fetus is murder, they then say that the mother should receive death by stoning. This is contradictory to the case and is a concession - it negates the only argument that they provided." In certain instances death penalty is necessary for certain crimes, a fetus has committed no crime. Therefore this is irrelevant. "I never that the teenagers were below the legal age of abortions being allowed. I said 18-19 year olds which is old enough [6]. The argument talked about teenagers missing out on their lives. This means that it still stands and has been dropped again." I"m sorry, your grammar on this paragraph is so bad I can"t understand it, come back later with a fully illustrated point. "Con respond to human rights by saying that he supports the right to life. This doesn't make sense; he says that we should stone the mothers to death which is not supporting the right to life." In certain instances death penalty is necessary for certain crimes, a fetus has committed no crime. Therefore this is irrelevant. P.S. How do you post pictures?