Abortion

U thabk my opponent fot this debate, I hope he enjoys it. =)C1: A fetus is a human, therefore it's murderSince a fetus is a human, it should be considered murder. I will now prove thait a fetus is a human being. A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks: 1. Living things are highly organized. 2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy. 3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment. 4. All living things have an ability to reproduce. 5. All living things have an ability to adapt. According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her. [1] So according to these definitions, a fetus is a human. Killing it would be murder, and it's not justified because its not self-defense. An abortion is only justified in the case to save a mothers life. Life begins at conseption. Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception. [1] More of the same... “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” Hippocrates, 400 B.C., Greece Sorry if the enlarged stuff is annoying, but that is from my first source. C2: It is morally wrong to kill a person, society looks down upon those acts. This is hard to argue against. A fetus is a person therefore it is murder (or should be considered so). I have proven my point aboveas pf now, that a fetus is a human being. I will expand next round on that point as it will be needed. But this point relates to the one above, a fetus is a human, killing it is murder, and killing is morally wrong. Same old same old. C3: It is morally wrong to kill a fetus Well a fetus is a human, and killing unless in self-defense is morally wrong, so it is morally wrong to kill a fetus. This point relys on the 2 above. C4: Religeon in some cases pohibits abortion. This is undisputable, but I will add on to it anyway. This point only relys towards christians. “…and Rebekah his [Isaac’s] wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her…” (Genesis 25:21-22). Notice that when she conceived, i was called a child. It consideres the zygot a human. This biblical quote is from my seond source as well. Also look at the 10 commandments: "thou shall not kill", or "thou shall not murder", depending on the translation, but that specfically states that murder/killing is wrong, and above calls a zygot a child, so in god's eyes abortion is murder because he agrees with my above conentions. ALso, Catholics are against abortion, as you know, and many protestants are as well. So this only applies to christians, abortion is wrong on the lines of our faith. C5: More people are pro-life than pro-choice as of 2011 This is just a little side argument: So theres that. Rebuttals: "Since my opponent’s main case relies on abortion being murder, it will also be my obligation to negate his contention. If I’ve fulfilled this obligation, you must negate the resolution." Well I have proven that a fetus is a human, but I will add on to it here, if fetus is a human then it is murder: Fetuses feel pain during an abortion according to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. "If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain." So above I proved that a fetus is a human, here I prove that it is painful for the baby. "I will show that a mother has rights over her body and privacy, and that it is more important to save the mother than the unborn fetus if both lives are at stake. " Well, most women do not want this right: Most women do not want this right, also lets add on to this rebuttal. A fetus is a human, therefor it deserves basic human rights, and it should have control over its body. So killing the baby takes away it's freedom, so it's a 50-50 split of freedoms. Although women do not want this freedom, you will still argu that it is essential. So the women loses rights the baby gains them. But since a majority of women do not want these rights, then why should they have them? "I’ll be proving in this premise that illegalizing abortion is a bad idea and a disadvantage to society and may lead to bad consequences and events." Tanl you for this argument, I love to attack it. You claim that more abortions wil happen illegally if it is illegal, wrong. Senator James Buckley stated: "Data from foreign countries having far longer experience with legalised abortion than we have had in the US, suggest that legalisation has no effect on the criminal abortion rate. In at least three countries, the criminal abortion rate has actually risen since legalisation. Legalised abortion moves the back alley abortionists into the front office where their trade can be practised without fear of criminal prosecution." [5] Dr Christopher Tietze, an abortion advocate, concedes: "Although one of the major goals of the liberalisation of abortion laws in Scandinavia was to reduce the incidence of illegal abortion, this was not accomplished. Rather as we know from a variety of sources, both criminal and total abortions increased." [4] So look at this, a senator says there is no poof that legilising it redices that number, and a pro choice docor admits that legilising it increases the back street abortions. So I have proven that when its illegal there is less of both types of abortion. "For my last contention, I will attempt to finally argue that a woman has a right to abort a child." This is a vauge point. I will not refute it...yet. So please expand then I'll attepmt to refute it. I await your response. :) Sorry if my spellings bad, the spell check has an internal error. Sources: http://prolifephysicians.org... [1] http://www.christiananswers.net... [2] http://www.gallup.com... [3] Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. 93rd Congress of the US [4] Dr Christopher Tietze [5]