Abortion

"However this does not change my point that the founders of our constitution, and our government for that matter define "life" as a right to a human being." Ad authoritatem. :D " For Clarity's sake I would like to make clear that my opponent has conceded that fetus's are alive, but contends that they are not human, and thus do not have the right to life granted by our government." Close. Governments are incapable of "Granting" rights, they either recognize them or they don't, but the rights exist prior to the formation of government. But yes, I hold that fetuses are living nonhumans. " I am not arguing whether fetus's are human in the context of philosophy. " This is a lie. You stated, in your round one, this is your resolution: "I hereby propose illegalizing abortion after the 21st day of conception except to save a woman's life, or in the case of rape or incest." You PROPOSE ILLEGALIZING. This means, you are not attempting to argue that it is illegal, but that it SHOULD be illegal. Whether something "should" be is the exclusive domain of philosophy. "Philosophy is pure hearsay" This is pure nonsense. Hearsay means you did not yourself experience it, but are relying on the stated experience of others. This has nothing to do with philosophy. "and is based upon opinion and idle conjecture." It is based upon inductive and deductive logic, starting from the facts of reality. If you hold that there are no facts to reality, you invalidate the notion that anything can be known, and therefore invalidate your resolution, because it assumes that certain facts exist and have to be dealt with, as do all ethical proposals. "I am debating whether a fetus is human in the eyes of the United States Law." Again a lie. What the United States Law ACTUALLY says has absolutely nothing to do with what it SHOULD say. Your resolution is a proposed action, and thus argues what SHOULD be, not what IS. "Using your argument of philosophy (which uses rationality to denote humanity) would rule out people with Alzheimer's, dementia, and mental health diseases as having the rights both to live, and all other constitutional rights that we grant humans (as I have said previously) ." Rights are not granted by outside entities. And I already addressed the mental illness portion. " In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly declared in article three, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."" And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also contradicts that, with such phrases as " Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. " Being obligated to provide health care, food, clothing, etc, to another person, is not compatible with the right to life, liberty, and security of person. It is only compatible with slavery. The same, with being obligated to provide such to a fetus, oddly enough. Since the document is self-contradictory, it is clearly not reliable. :D " You stated that courts were infallible, however law is not." I stated the opposite. Both courts and law are fallible. You have already conceded this by arguing that abortion should be forbidden, since current US law allows abortion, due to the decision of the court. Therefore it is a contradiction for you to uphold the ethical-epistemological validity of laws, or of courts, while arguing this resolution. " 2. I do not need to show effective without exception to show the minute odds of contracting an unwanted pregnancy, because there is a tool out there which is 100% effective and that is abstinence. I'm not advocating abstinence" If you do not advocate x, it cannot be taken into account when discussing the flaws of your proposition. "Furthermore adoption is also 100% effective." This is not true. There are fewer people to adopt then there are babies to be adopted. :D. "If as my opponent stated the period is missed after the 21 days then I suggest putting the child up for adoption. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant anyone the right to deny human life." False in fact (except the grant part, part of the nature of rights is that they cannot be granted), it specifically provides for "Capital crimes" existing. Note, in any case, that you have not shown the fetus to be human, i.e. rational animal. " Let me explain the female cycle for you clearly. Conception can only occur during ovulation. Ovulation occurs two weeks before a menstrual cycle begins. Conception occurs two weeks after your period begins." This is not exactly true. It may be true in the majority of cases, or some reasonable facsimile thereof, however, that timing is a median timing, not an absolute. It can be longer or shorter, and may be irregular, depending on the woman. Just about any bodily process that is subject to minute changes in internal chemical ratios, including the menstrual cycle, is far too complex to be predicted as a matter of certainty. " Your argument on economic non necessity would apply if a fetus was not recognized as a human under united states law. " Whether United States law regards fetuses as human has little bearing on whether they actually are. Since this argument is about what SHOULD BE the law, and not what IS, your argument does not apply. " No statistics is only more complicated than you think if I was judging by 1 poll or a group of polls that were done in an incoherent manner. However when national pollsters that are highly repudiated and unbiased have the same data, we get a public opinion that is accurate. And no these polls were not conducted via the Internet, they are random phone polls." Phone polls have an inherent bias toward phone owners, and toward people who actually respond when they hear "Hello, I am here to talk to you about your opinions, this is not a sales call, blah blah blah" (who, by the way, are frequently housewives, and therefore frequently disproportionately socially conservative) The statistical term "Bias" has a different meaning than the common term "Bias." There are no statistically "Unbiased" pollers in the world, because there are no such polling methods. And the fact that you just admitted that the pollsters are "Highly repudiated" doesn't speak well for your case. " Instead of trying to negate everything from the constitution, to the concept of democracy, to the laws of the United States, to court cases, to statistical polls, I suggest you provide more sufficient information on your own viewpoint instead of using anti virus software." What relevant information have I failed to provide? You have not mentioned any. "(by the way tracking cookies are not harmless) " Yes, in fact, they are, unless you are on a public computer, which is not where the anti-cookie software is marketed. They are bits of data that can only be created with your consent, and are capable of doing nothing without the computer user's input. The only conceivable harm would be if you had millions of them, to the extent of clogging bandwidth. And that, frankly, just doesn't happen. "A. You might want to check the "infallible" constitution on cruel and unusual punishment." You are the one who implies it is infallible, I am claiming that it is highly fallible. :D "Fish again do not compare to human beings under the constitution." We are not talking about human beings, i.e. rational animals, we are talking about fetuses. "You eat fish. I sincerely hope you do not eat fetuses." They aren't very nutritious, and the practice of eating them would spread disease. What's your point? Cont. in comments.