Abortion

1. In the hypothetical I gave out, she is homeless and can't simply move. It is not so simple, as you think. This is a poverty-stricken mother-to-be in an extremely dangerous environment for a child. She's doesn't know anywhere else and is afraid to leave. Further, she lives in a big city, so she would have to hitchhike or something to leave where she currently resides which poses high safety risks. As such, given that she doesn't know where the closest town is, she doesn't want to risk it." It goes without saying that my opponent, whether intentionally or not, changed the circumstances of the hypothetical situation he/she gave me above in Round 1. They had said the mother in question lived in a bad neighborhood with crime and murder, is homeless, and had no one to turn to. He/she did NOT state, however, that the mother didn't know where the nearest town(s)/city(s) was. (And even IF, hypothetically speaking, she didn't, couldn't she research areas nearby that would be more suitable for her and her child to live in?) Not to mention, she could use "zero-fare" (meaning fully-subsidized, so it wouldn't cost her a cent) public transporation to get to a safer place to raise her child, thus avoiding the possibility of being raped while hitchhiking, as my opponent had mentioned earlier. 2. "Not every city has such places readily available with the knowledge of EVERY citizen. She is uneducated and cannot locate such a place, nor does she know it exists. If a mother in this situation feels she cannot go ANYWHERE or do ANYTHING to ensure a safe and proper environment for her child, then SHE a rational, thinking, breathing human being that has already lived life, should not be forced to bring a baby into such a situation. There isn't always a strangely convenient place to turn for immediate help." Sigh, my opponent yet again added additional circumstances which did not apply to the hypothetical situation he/she provided in the first round, not to mention what they had said flies face-first into reality. If that were the case, why are there so many programs, resources and people in general out there wanting and willing to help? As a matter of fact, there are ways to find out what resources are available for you, like going to a public library and researching on the internet, especially since the mother wouldnt be able to afford a computer or phone herself anyway. Its a win-win in this situation because she'll not only learn of the wide-variety of resources available to her, (I.e. including but not limited to the U.S. Department of Labor, http://www.dol.gov..., U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, http://portal.hud.gov..., Homelessness Resource Center, http://homeless.samhsa.gov..., and more.), but the internet provided by the library is free for anyone to use. 3. "This argument is irrelevant. These functions are present in things as minuscule as bacteria and plants. Should it be illegal to step on a plant? Plants can grow through photosynthesis, bacteria can reproduce asexually, and so forth. According to Con's logic, it should be illegal to step on a plant, and the law should be obligated to preserve all bacteria as it is immoral to consciously allow bacteria to be eliminated." I did not expect my opponent to blow this way out of proportion. While bacteria and plants are life too, does not deny the fact that cells are biologically considered life, let alone that were talking about a HUMAN fetus. Furthermore, he/she helps me prove my point that if cells didn't exist or arent living things themselves, life altogether would cease to exist. For example, if a plants cells didn't photosynthesize, the plant couldn't make or use energy and would perish, or how the cells in our own bodies reproduce and multiply so that we can grow, because if they didn't we'd stay small forever. In other words, if cells aren't living things, then why are they able to carry out all of those processes that living things need to do to survive as I had mentioned in Round 2? I'd kindly suggest my opponent to study biology a little more before jumping to conclusions that something NEEDS a heart or consciousness to be living, when cells are proof on the contrary. 4. "Your hypothetical would be homicidal murder whereas the termination of a pregnancy that has not yet produced a LIVING thing is simply an early-term abortion which is morally justifiable for reasons already stated above." Its clear my opponent denies the fact that cells themselves are living things when I had provided the evidence that they were. He/she apparently didn't specify so far as it comes to what KIND of life he/she was talking about. "Before the fetus gains ANY human-like quality, and lacks the simplest things, like recognizable body parts, a heart-beat, consciousness, a capacity to feel pain, and so forth, the mother has a right to her own body. If you are against a rational-thinking mother choosing what to do with her own body before the fetus is a living thing, then that is violation her rights." This was a statement they made in round 1. Now look at the statement they made in round 2. "Furthermore, my opponent is playing semantics games. Con should know it is blatantly obvious that I'm talking about sentiatic life." Ironic, isn't it? I had proven cells were living things, and a fetus is made of cells. I would encourage voters to take THAT into consideration when the time comes to vote. I bid PRO good luck in the final round.