Abortion

Ok well good. So now it has been explicitly stated by myself and my opponent that the fetus is a living human being. Keep this in mind. You really have failed to refute anything I have said. You make statements such as "If the child refuses to leave my body, I have a right to kill it," without supporting your claims in any way. Your sentences do not explain anything. Rather, they state insubstantial claims. So now, since you have not supported your own sentences, I will refute them. "If the child refuses to leave my body, I have a right to kill it.." Where does anything suggest that you have the right to kill an innocent human being, who is not yet conscious, just for the location where they live? The body is as much as a physical location as a house. Obviously there are differences, but living in a house or living inside a body can be equated in the grounds that they are both physical locations. You wouldn't kill a year old child who wanders into your room if they refuse to leave. You wouldn't kill an unconscious adult for refusing to leave your house because they have no culpability for their actions. Both would be murder. Where you live does not determine whether you live. The fetus (a living human being) has no culpability and therefore is innocent. Because the child is innocent, and where you live does not determine whether you live, then the child has the right to life. Most importantly, if you agree there are certain rights to your own body then you must agree on other rights, chiefly the right to life. Since the right to life is the right from which all other rights stem, then you have to protect the right to life in this situation. Because the right to life trumps the right to control your own body, and because there are two separate individuals involved in abortion, and both have the ultimate right to life, then the child cannot be killed. Are you really ok with eliminating the chief right from which all other rights stem aka the right to life? Since every single human being has the right to life, and you admit the fetus is a human being, then you cannot justify killing the innocent human being inside the mother. Whether you like it or not, if you support the right to life, then you inherently have to be opposed to abortion. "The Child is in violation of the wishes to leave my body" Refer to above arguments. "Not at all. Sex is not only for reproduction. Provide anything to back that." First of all, I never said sex was ONLY for reproduction. I said all consensual sex inherently consents to reproduction. That is not the same thing as saying sex is only for reproduction. In fact, sex also brings the couple closer together by usage of hormones. Sex bonds the people consenting to it. But this is not the point. I am saying that if you have consensual sex, you are open to reproduction. Sexual intercourse is the act by which two beings of the opposite sex reproduce. Therefore, since sex is the means by which reproduction occurs, sexual intercourse will always mean that reproduction is possible. And because sex leads to reproduction, then by consenting to sex, you consent to the reproduction. Since those who participate in sexual intercourse are aware of the possibility of becoming pregnant, and they still consent to sex, then they are consenting to the sex which inherently, as part of its essence, possesses to possibility for pregnancy. They are consenting to the possibilities of reproducing aka conceiving a child. "Good thing abortion is legal." So its a good thing to run away from our responsibilities by killing children? That child has every right to life that you and I have. Killing the fetus is equal to killing you or me since the fetus, you ,and I are human beings and all human beings are created equal. So it is a terrible thing that it is legal to brutally kill innocent babies who cannot defend themselves. "Conjecture" These arguments support the statements that sex consents to conception. You cannot run away from a responsibility to protect that child's life any more than a gambler can run away from his debt. People need to protect that inalienable right to life, not remove it. "It will not leave my body voluntarily. It is violating my right to determine the use of my body." How can you justifiably condemn a human being to death who had no choice to be in your body? How can you justifiably condemn an innocent human baby to death who cannot voluntarily make any conscious choices? How can you justifiably condemn an innocent human child to death for the actions of his or her parents in having sex? You would be condemning an innocent child to death for the actions of his or her parents. That is wrong. I will say this again: If you support the right to "determine the use of my own body" then you are defending human rights. And if you defend human rights, then you must defend the principle human right from which all other human rights stem: The Right to Life. Since you must defend the Right to Life, and since you would support all human beings are created equal, then you would have to defend that all human beings have equal human rights such as the right to life. And because you openly admit a fetus is a living human being, then you have to support the child's inalienable right to life. Thus, abortion is wrong. Boom. Never forget: "The right to swing my fist ends where another man's nose begins"- Oliver Wendell Holmes `