Abortion

My apologies for the sh!t arguments. I have two hours left, and I have to be somewhere in a little, so this is all I could do on an iPad with a fifteen minute timeframe. Thanks for patiently waiting, Con. "Assuming that the circumstance provided by my opponent in Round 1 didn't include rape, incest, or having unprotected sex as I had described in Round 1, this would definitely be a tight-spot to be in, however, this does not mean the mother has to necessarily accept the situation she's in as unchangeable. For instance, couldn't she just move out of the neighborhood if its an unfit place to raise a child?" -Con. 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. Additionally hitchhiking poses risk of one of the exceptions you stated - rape. "And even If she's unable to afford to move out at the time, she could go to the Department of Human Services to find out what assistance she could receive pertaining to programs for food, clothing, shelter, job-training, day-care funding, college assistance, and other programs that would help her meet her current needs as well as obtaining goals for the future." -Con. 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. The only option is to bring a life into the dysfunctional place stated above, or terminate the pregnancy for the time being, and probably have kids at a later time in a healthier environment. "My opponent had said "Before the fetus gains ANY human-like quality, and lacks the simplest things, such as recognizable body-parts, a heartbeat, a capacity to feel pain, consciousness, the mother has a right to her own body." I hate to break it to my opponent, but just because something doesn't have recognizable body parts, a heartbeat, or anything else my opponent has mentioned above doesn't necessarily disprove that something is a living thing. For example, cells are biologically considered living things because they can carry out several functions, including but not limited to reproduction (cells can divide themselves asexually), growth (cellular metabolism), homeostasis (cell membranes can control chemicals going in and out of the cell), transform and use energy (photosynthesis and ATP), and more." -Con. 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. Furthermore, my opponent is playing semantics games. Con should know it is blatantly obvious that I met sentient life. The fact that he made this argument is ridiculous. I urge the voters to take this into account when voting on conduct. "So far as it comes to consciousness, let's say that (hypothetically speaking) someone broke into your neighbors house at 3 A.M. in the morning and killed them in their sleep, would it be a legitimate excuse for the criminal to claim that since your neighbor wasn't conscious at the time that their actions were acceptable? No, I didn't think so." -Con. This argument is both asinine and absurd. My neighbors have all lived life, accomplished things, have jobs/go to school, and are WAY past the zygote stage. They have had a heartbeat and consciousness for years, or even decades. We are thinking of two different kinds of unconsciousness. The same cannot be said for something that has never had a consciousness, or a heartbeat. They have not been a living thing yet. Through Con's logic, birth control should be illegal. 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. "Not to mention, the fetus itself isn't considered a part of the women's body, because it is attacked by the mothers immune system because it sees the fetus as an enemy, although its not. The chemicals isoleamine and dioxygenase (IDO for short) come to the fetus's rescue, however, and stop the attack from destroying it. So to say that a women has a right to do what she wants with her own body pertaining to something that isn't a part of it is invalid." -Con. The chemicals that save the fetus would not be produced nor utilized if it were not part of the woman's internal systems which are located in her body. Therefore, things in her body help keep another thing in her body alive, which is a common process with many different examples. Moreover, there are many reasons this argument is inane as shown below. How is a not yet living thing that dictates the mother's food cravings, gives her morning sickness, and pains her NOT part of her body? It is INSIDE the mother, just like lungs, a heart, or a liver. In the stages before it is alive, it is a part of the mother's body. It is an extension of her internals, which is helped by other parts of her body. This is similar to many other internal body structures (e.g the heart has many functions in order to help keep something alive). By the way, a heart, something which determines whether something is living, is something an early-term fetus lacks. This discredits my opponent's argument that something that lacks a heart is a living, sentient being. Your turn, Con.