Abortion up to the Second Trimester Should Be Legalized.

I'm sorry to hear that my opponent had to keep his response short due to a lack of time. I can completely understand; however, I think his lack of sufficient explanation will prove devastating to his case. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "At best, you are just trying to deconstruct the semantics of the debate title." Not so. It's unfortunate for my opponent that he hastily created a poorly conceived resolution and then unwittingly contradicted his resolution's stance. In fact, his last argument regarding the philosophical definition of a person only further contradicts his initial claim that "a fetus is not a person"; which we get to in a minute. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Supreme Court Case Roe v. Wade (1973) "Any such "viable fetus" can be and should be able to be aborted until after the second trimester. This is because not only does the fetus not have a fully developed brain (i.e. not self-aware, conscious,etc.) it also can't feel pain since the necessary neural networks haven't developed yet." My opponents statements continue to contradict the basis of the resolution. He claims that it should be legal to abort a viable fetus "UNTIL after the second trimester"; thereby continuing to reiterate that the limit for legal abortions should only consist of UP TO the end of the second trimester. He attempts to use the lack of cognition and neural networks of the fetus to substantiate his point. This argument is flawed because it only indicates that there should be NO limitation within the fetal period at which to make abortions illegal. In fact, his logic would legalize the killing of not only a full term fetus, but an infant as well. This is affirmed by my opponent's own source: "Week 38: Organ function continues to improve. Your baby weighs nearly 7 pounds. His or her brain and nervous system are working better every day. This developmental process will continue through childhood and adolescence." (http://www.mayoclinic.com...) And further supported by the below: "As will be detailed below, the behavior of the fetus and newborn is likely a reflection of reflexive brainstem activities which are produced in the absence of forebrain-mediated affective or cognitive processing, i.e. thinking, reasoning, understanding, or true emotionality (Joseph, 1996a, 1999; Levene, 1993; Sroufe, 1996). It is the much slower to develop forebrain which generates higher order cognitive activity and purposeful behaviors, and which is responsible for the expression and experience of true emotions including pleasure, rage, fear and joy and the desire for social-emotional contact (Joseph, 1992, 1996ab, 1999; MacLean, 1990). At birth and for the ensuing weeks, the forebrain is so immature that its influences are limited to signaling distress in reaction to hunger or thirst; a function of the immature hypothalamus (Joseph, 1982, 1992, 1999) in conjunction with the midbrain periaqueductal gray (e.g. Larson, Yajima, & Ko, 1994; Zhang, Davis, Bandler, & Carrive, 1994)." (http://brainmind.com...) Just because a human being is not conscious or cannot feel pain, I have the right to kill it without repercussion? What of our coma patients? Why is it that they maintain the right to life even though they do not fit your requirements? It's because such arguments lead to absurd ends. That's why the court favors the right to life of a viable fetus. If the fetus can live, then it has the right to do so unabridged by others. "Unless medical advanced allow the fetus to develop pain receptors and a developed brain (i.e. make it grow faster), then it should be illegal to abort it." But wait, the fetus could develop those receptors and brain functionality outside of the womb; however, you purpose legalizing the killing of it before it ever has the chance. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Abortion isn't murder "A fetus, without a working brain, can NOT do any of these things and thus abortion is NOT murder." Based on the current laws, I've already agreed that abortion is not murder. Murder: –noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) My opponent made no attempt to consider the fact that murder is not the ultimate determinant in what is moral or legal, as I pointed out in the second round. He had no retort concerning my statement "I think we can both agree that the killing of an innocent human being should be considered immoral and therefore also illegal." Therefore we must assume that he agrees that innocent human beings should not be killed. As I've already shown, a viable fetus is a human being. My opponent was either unable or unwilling to prove that a viable fetus should be considered guilty (i.e. not innocent). Therefore, we can only assume that my opponent stands unopposed to the idea that a government should not legalize the killing of a viable fetus. "My opponent's argument fails because he doesn't seem to understand the difference between a "person" and a "human"." I must disagree. I gave valid definition, supported by the most widely know use of the word "person". You offer a separate definition that I am more than willing to discuss. My opponent claims a person to be "rational and capable of making judgements". Let's roll with that. Again, my opponent's rationale assumes the legitimacy of the legal killing of an infant or coma patient without consequence. Neither of these individuals retains the ability to be rational or capable of making judgments; however, killing either one of these remains immoral and illegal. My opponent's argument for self-awareness and cognition presents a slippery slope that would certainly be detrimental to this country. Therefore, the Court's limitation of viability is superior to these standards. Standards which, again, are contradictory to my opponent's resolution of legalizing abortions UP TO the end of the second trimester. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion My opponent has not only failed to affirm his own resolution based on his numerous contradictory statements, but also managed to completely disregard the majority of my second to last paragraph in the second round. He posed no contest to my arguments regarding the fetus's right to life nor its precedence over the mother's pursuit of happiness. My opponent has provided no convincing arguments that should sway the U.S. legal system away from the current standard of viability in determining the legality of abortions. Therefore, I stand in negation of the resolution's standard of legalizing abortion up to of the second trimester. I wish my opponent the best in future debates. Hopefully time will permit him to be more thorough. - CP