Abortion

"I have already weighed the rights of the woman's bodily autonomy and the fetus's right to life. Do not pretend as though I have completely disregarded the rights of the mother, because I certainly have not. I simply have decided that the woman's bodily dignity is secondary to the right to live that the fetus which she is responsible for possesses. " Yes, and what you haven't done (and can't do now, seeing that we've come to the end of this debate) is give a decent explanation for why a fetus' life supercedes the bodily sanctity of its mother, but your life, mine, and everyone else's does not. You, despite your claims of wanting human equality for the unborn are in fact yourself perpetrating a great inequality in terms of how you value the lives of human beings---maintaining that we have a greater, farther encompassing right to life before we are born than the one we possess after we are born. You have, deliberately or not, ascribed a different value and a different level of rights to human beings before they leave the womb than to all of us who have. I would contend that my opponent is the one touting inequality in this instance, not I. My opponent also said, in no uncertain terms, that if "...that person owes me such a thing (a better life), then I dang well can." What does this even mean? Are we to believe that if we determine someone, ANYONE, to not be a sufficient help to us achieving our own happiness and potential that we have a right to do with them whatever we want? If a math teacher in high school failed to assist you academically and you were forced to drop out of school due to this, you believe they should have to pay your living expenses for you down the line because they "owed" you a chance at a better job; a better life and didn't deliver, so now you're their problem? Please. Can anyone think of a more selfish and childish way of looking at the world? Always taking advantage of other people and then blaming their actions on their victims because they "should've treated them better"? Because they felt like something was "owed" to them? Really? Our jails are full of these sorts of people, perpetually whining about how they deserved better from everyone in their lives. In reference to the existence of god vs. multiverse theory bit, what separates these two hypothesis is that, at least on paper, the mathematical science supporting the multiverse seems sound and entirely plausible, whereas, we have no such evidence bolstering the claim of there existing a god or gods. We don't even have a unanimous definition for what a god IS, let alone how we could possibly test for one or if the existence of one is even possible. And assume for a moment that we don't have any explanations. The answer then becomes "We don't know." not "God did it." The god hypothesis does not become more plausible in lieu of any other explanation. If an unidentified object is spotted in the sky, it does not become the most likely explanation or the most reasonable position to assume that what was seen was an alien spacecraft stopping by earth to gather humans for an interstellar breeding program in the absence of any other answer. That would still be an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence to justify it. My opponent made an interesting statement when they said "But under your right to live being snuffed out, you still had a chance, unless the fetus in question is already brain-dead." If one was arguing for the existence of a soul tied to the presence of human life and intrinsic human value tied to human biology what would it matter whether or not the fetus was braindead? Would that change its humanity or the fact that it presented the characteristics of life? It would seem to me that my opponent does not really put all that much stock into their own argument, since earlier in the debate, they stated that whether or not someone was vegetative had no bearing on their value or right to life, but now they seem to be stating that they see no issue with aborting a braindead fetus. Interesting. And to the point on computers, I did not state that they fail the test of personhood because they lack the characteristics of life. What I stated was that "...they have no consciousness to speak of, no identity, nor anything resembling a personality which is a trait that follows along with intelligent life. " It wouldn't matter to me a bit whether or not something biologically alive, which is why I gave the example of a non-organic person (an android) earlier in the debate. It is not the presence of biological functions or a particular type of DNA that determines personhood. In the unconscious leg-amputation example that was given, my opponent leaves out one very important factor and that is that the unconscious person is not being thusly mutilated purely for the benefit of someone else. They are being mutilated because this is what is medically necessary to save THEIR life, not to benefit someone else's life. If they were losing a limb simply to benefit someone else, that would be a more analogous example to a forced pregnancy scenario because it would be taking into account WHY it was that this person was losing a leg: was it for their one welfare, or was it for someone else's? I also love the irony of accusing someone of making an emotional argument while simultaneously stating that driving drunk is essentially the same as having sex, not wanting to endure an unwanted pregnancy is the same as not wanting to make amends for putting someone in a coma, and that becoming pregnant accidently is the same as crashing your car into someone else while intoxicated. Beautiful little dance of hypocrisy there. "Most likely, in the mid to late 1970s and early 1980s girls realized "Hey wait a second, sex won't make me carry a baby for 9 months since I can just abort now! It's party time!" I think it was likely something closer to "Oh my god, now I can actually be sexually active and still go to school and get an education and pursue a great career afterward just like all of the boys my own age who WON'T have to give up all those things to support me if I do get pregnant because they'll just say it isn't theirs or they'll sign away their rights and I'll still be stuck with the damn thing." Or something like that. Interestingly, my opponent agrees that infanticide rates would likely increase in the absence of access to abortion. Which, I assume, means that they are perfectly comfortable gambling away THESE human lives full of potential, and the lives of all the young women pushed to this, simply to support their political/moral stance on this issue. Yikes. I'm not even sure what to say to that. Last point I'm going to address, my opponent does what is typical of pro-life individuals and tries to pass adoption as the universal band-aid solution for the problem of unwanted infants. Let me preface this all by saying that this is NOT an argument against adoption. I have no problem with people putting children up for adoption if that's what's best. (I actually think that there are far too many people who keep kids that they really should give up, a situation that causes more misery for everyone involved. But that's neither here nor there and isn't the subject of this debate.) What I do have a problem with is the idea that adoption is, in all cases a better, alternative to abortion. In reality, adoption isn't even an alternative to abortion at all. What it is is an alternative to PARENTING. It solves the problem of a CHILD REARING, but not the problem of unwanted pregnancy. It turns out that those are not actually the same thing. Women still face nine months of gestation and the pain and sickness that comes with it, will still require very expensive medical care, will miss work or school, will still endure the pain of labor, and will still face all of the risks that come with pregnancy and delivery including a completely avoidable death. To some women, like myself, this is simply unacceptable. Too often, people accuse women who get abortions of doing so "for convenience." (If one could honestly describe all mentioned in the previous comment as mere "inconvenience.") And, of course, nothing is more "convenient" than taking time out of your schedule to forge though a mob of screaming protesters on your way inside your local clinic to get an uncomfortable and, for some, embarrassing procedure and then withstand cramps and bleeding for a few days, all the while being judged by those around you. (Which is why I mentioned in a previous post that having the courage and foresight to undergo and abortion procedure IS an act of taking responsibility for that pregnancy) And all of this comes after making what could, at least for some people, be a VERY difficult decision, figuring out how to afford the procedure, taking time off work, and finding care for any kids that might already exist, reconciling themselves with any religious beliefs they may hold, etc. The insistence of adoption as the single best solution is made even worse when coming from women who have already had children. They, of all people, know that pregnancy is anything but a simple inconvenience. Realizing you left the remote on top of the TV on the other side of the room is an inconvenience. Pregnancy is an ordeal and birthing is an enormously painful experience. Being forced to do this against your will is a horrific violation, and the potential of the fetus does not justify this. Unless future technology allows someone to adopt a fetus during gestation, and take it into their OWN uterus to later give birth to, or to an artificial uterus of some kind, then adoption does not and can not ever hope to solve the problem of pregnancy as abortion does. It simply can not protect women the same way that an abortion can. This concludes my argument and this debate. I thank all who read this for doing so.