Abortion

= Opening Statements = I am a bit frustrated at this debate, on several levels. My opponent has directly gone against my wishes of keeping this debate simple, and avoiding irrelevant aspects associated with this topic. The Categorical Imperative, Utilitarianism, Suicide, Al Qaeda, Warfare; None of them has anything to do with abortion. Furthermore my opponent never refutes my arguments directly, but uses logical syllogisms to skew the ground of the debate. They assert that because a certain action is justified in a certain situation it is justified when speaking about abortion. And when my opponent began to talk about definitions, I had to get up and walk away from my computer for a few moments. Let's simplify this in so much as we can, I claim that abortion is wrong; as we are taking the life of an unborn human without a just cause. My opponent claims that it's all in the name of utilitarianism, and killing a fetus somehow benefits all of society. (Rouge Captain scenario) = Debate = a. Because people value life, you will never find a society that says murder is alright; it's always just a means to an end. We may think the end is good, but never that murder is good. b. This is the is/ought fallacy. Just because something is law, doesn't mean it's a moral action. Otherwise my opponent would have to affirm that it is moral for China to kill Christians just because that's the law. c. The cancer is apart of the human, I won't refute that; however it is not all of the human as a whole. When treating cancer you may kill part of the human (the cancerous tissue and cells) however the original entity that is the human remains in tact. Abortion doesn't only partially kill the fetus, and it is not meant to help the fetus in the long run; it completely kills the child, and it's sole intent is to end the child's life. d. The Fetus will die before the mother does if their lives are in conflict due to lack of nutrients[1]. The Fetus will almost always die before the mother when complications of pregnancy arise[1]. And while the baby does die during a miscarriage, it's not murder as the baby died without malicious intent. Miscarriage are a tragic part of nature, but it's not the same thing as another human deciding a fetus should not live. Also on the issue of rights, according to the Declaration of Independence, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[2][3] a person's rights are given when they come into being. As the Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and from the UDHR "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world," Finally, even where they not guaranteed that right by their fellow man, or by law; if the right is value universally, then they have that right. The only difference is that their right is unjustly ignored by those around them. Again, I'll extend across the is/ought fallacy; just because a fetus is not given these rights in the status quo, doesn't mean they shouldn't be given this right. In the same way, just because people in China are denied their human rights doesn't mean they should be. e. Extend across (c.) first of all, next extend across my semantics arguments; The point of this debate is not to argue what a dictionary says, but to argue the subject of this debate. Finally extend across my arguments from the is/ought fallacy; just because the fetus isn't guaranteed these rights by the state, doesn't mean they shouldn't be. f. My opponent does this time and time again throughout the course of their case when they claim abortion is alright because the fetus isn't yet guaranteed the right to life. e. Extend. Pro- 1. Clear cases where abortion should be allowed a. Rape- Rape is indeed a terrible thing, and in the same way the woman didn't choose to be raped, the baby didn't choose to be created. b. Medical Need- While in this case the end product of abortion would benefit the mother, the act itself would not (i.e. the means are not justified just because the end is.). Also I would like to extend across my opponent's scenario of the rouge captain; Utilitarianism. 2. Abortions don't stop when we ban them- If you accept my prior logic that abortion is murder, despite it's necessity; then this argument is irrelevant. First, nothing stops just because its banned; Murder, Drugs, Rape, Theft all of them continue to happen although they're illegal. That isn't grounds to legalize them. Second, in the realm of Utilitarianism extend my arguments on my opponent's first argument. Third, it's a terrible thing that these women died. But this isn't grounds to justify abortion/legalize abortion. It's simply an awful tragedy. 3. Unwanted children are bad for society- First, my opponents opening statements outline why women wan to get abortions; he never actually legitimizes the action however. Next on my opponent's card by Stephen Levitt, there is no reason to believe that the legalization of abortion should be linked to the drop in crime. These are two completely separate areas, and unless my opponent can cite directly in the article the link between the drop in crime and legalization of abortion this is not a benefit for them. For instance, it's been proven that those who vote tend to commit less crime than those who do not vote. That does not mean we ought to conclude that voting lowers crime rates, it means that individuals who vote happen to commit less crime than those who do not. On Foster Care, I would first contend that even if the are sexually abused; that is preferable to never getting the chance to exist at all. Do not get me wrong, I agree that the current system is not a good one; and it's a tragedy that so many children are abused. But so long as they are given the chance to survive, they can overcome. Next, we see the obvious solution is to push fr changes in current adoption laws; So that less children are in foster homes, and more are adopted by a solid and steady family. The reason so many people are discouraged from adopting children in the US in the first place is because it's an expensive and difficult process. [4] in fact in 1998 only 4,697 American Orphans where adopted, whereas 15, 774 where adopted from overseas by American parents. There is a desire to adopt and get these children into safe, stable homes; the need for change lies in reforming the current system. 4. Absurdity- Extend the prior stated argument on miscarriage. = Conclusion = Abortion is murder, and morally wrong; despite whether or not it is seen as necessary in a given situation. = Sources = [1] http://www.preconceptionhealth.org... [2] http://www.ushistory.org... [3] http://www.un.org... [4] http://statistics.adoption.com...