Abortion

Thank you for your response. 1. My opponent dropped the criminally wrong point. My opponent goes on to make an appeal to authority saying since religions say it's wrong, it must be wrong. Furthermore, with all these doctrines they cite they presuppose the fetus is a human being. Without providing any reason for us to believe the fetus is a human being. "Even though it is only a fetus, in just 9 months, it will be a human being like you and I." This argument basically says, because the fetus will eventual develop into a human being that we should refrain from killing it. But, it does not answer the question of why we should refrain from killing it. As shown above (and below), the fetus's life is dependent upon the kindness of the mother. 2. 50% failed contraceptives. 30% Teen pregnancies. The rest are from rape, incest and other crimes as well as medical reasons. This also brings up another point, what about in the cases where the woman never consented to sexual intercourse, nothing you say applies here. How about when the woman's life is in danger, would an abortion be in order in that case? 3. I do not see where my opponent is getting her information from. According to Stanford, " 20% of women suffer from mood or anxiety disorders during the gestation and postpartum periods". It says nothing about abortions. 4. Concession. Both have medical risks. 5. My opponent completely ignores the fact I provided Supreme Court cases and reasoning behind it. Instead attacking the premise consent to sex =/= consent for pregnancy. I will now defend this premise. Acknowledging sex may get you pregnant does not equal consent for the pregnancy. For example, if I drive a car on a rainy day does this mean I consent to a car accident which can cause harm to me and possibly kill me? Of course not. If an accident does occur all parties are allowed to call 911 to mitigate the effects of the accident. Life is dangerous and almost anything we do has the potential for danger, man acknowledges this but, man does not consent to danger. Why is it that in no other circumstance, other than abortion, do people argue taking the risk equals consent for the damages and the waiving of the right to mitigate these damages? You may argue my example is not natural so therefore, pregnancy should continue unabated by medical intervention. But, then you must also argue other natural things such as disease must be allowed to run their course without treatment, disease is natural and if by having sex you are consenting to pregnancy why wouldn't touching a toilet seat be consenting to whatever disease may be present on the toilet seat? If you argue against this then, your premise regarding abortion is misogynist and only seeks to unequally render the health and bodily integrity of those who can get pregnant meaningless and not the population as a whole. 6. Adoption agencies can only hold "x" amount of children before placing them in foster homes before permanent adoptions can be made. There are "x" children and "y" willing couples. But, "X" is much greater than "y". 7. I refer back to my 5th point. People can have non-procreative sexual intercourse. It is a constitutional right. 8. Prove it. This is basically what you are trying to argue. Person is a legal term. Prove a fetus has legal rights. I concede they are human (possessing human DNA == human) not that they are human beings. 9. Surgery harms a person is that against the Hippocratic Oath? Even when abortions is necessary to save the mother's life is that against the Hippocratic Oath? My opponent still has not proven the fetus is a baby. My case The Rockstar Analogy My opponent did not see what this hypothetical represents instead they ask, "How does a rockstar equal a fetus?" In both cases, the thing in question is dependent upon a person. The fetus is dependent upon the mother. The rockstar is dependent upon you. Cross apply my entire analysis of this hypothetical here. Furthermore, the mother never wished to create the fetus. Organ Donations A live organ donor chose at one point to donate his/her organs. They still hold the right to recant their decision. Cross-apply my logic under point 5 here. "Abortion is legal up to 24 weeks (6 months) of pregnancy. At this 6 month mark, there is a heartbeat and the fetus' movements are stronger. The fetus is approximately 1.3 pounds and 12 inches long. The fetus' eyelids are developed. Most importantly- if the mother had to deliver the baby at this point, the chances of it surviving are extremely high." Abortion is legal up to this point, thus, it is illegal afterwards. I do not see how this is relevant to the debate at hand. To conclude, my opponent drops many of the points I made throughout this debate. They completely ignore my last hypothetical (the "poke") and instead focus on such trivial details all while completely ignoring my explanation of the hypothetical situations. My opponent also refuses to answer the two questions I posed before beginning my arguments. Thus, they have no response and we must hold my answer to be the only answer. The fetus does not have one person's body for its own good.