Abortion

Thank you for your response. 1. My opponent was alluding that because religion says it is wrong, it is wrong. They cited several well know religious doctrines how else should that be interpreted? 2. My opponent continues saying adoption not abortion, but, provides no reason why a woman should have to give up part of her life for the sake of the fetus. They keep presupposing a right to life, which I attack with my case. As for her answer to my question it fails for 2 reasons: 1) she never really answers the question, I asked whether it would be morally correct, she cites an unspoken connection between mother and fetus. 2) If there really was a connection there, they the mother would not be considering an abortion to begin with. 3. You may have put links, but, when reading them through, none of them mention psychological conditions resulting from abortion occur more often than having a child. In fact, the opposite is true. 4. Guess what there are a plethora of health problems resulting from pregnancy as well. Both have their medical risks. (1) 5. Yes, you are implying a contract to pregnancy. You completely ignore my argument on this point. You say because there is a chance you can get pregnant if you do get pregnant you must accept that as a consequence. But, to use my analogy from above, if you touch a toilet seat there is a chance you can get sick, should you just accept it and not treat any disease you may get? If you walk across the street you may get hit by a car, does that mean you are consenting to get hit by a car? Should you not go to the hospital if you do get hit by a car? The outcome of sexual intercourse may be pregnancy, but, why does this necessarily mean you are consenting to be pregnant? 6. Some implies a minority. Which means the majority do hold the children being put up for adoption. Furthermore, if the child was not wanted, how exactly is the biological parents home loving? It is not. 7. It is a constitutional right. Since a constitutional right to not have procreative sex trumps the state laws mandating the age of consent, it is your constitutional right, regardless of age, to be able to have non-procreative sexual intercourse. 8. Your basically arguing they have the potential to become a human being. But, they are not a human being just yet. They are utterly dependent upon another human being which turns a right to life into life based upon the kindness of another. 9. Abortions benefit the mother in some way or another although there is a chance of harm. My opponent never answered whether it is morally correct to save the mother at the cost of the fetus. Defense of my own case. Rockstar analogy Right about now I feel like my opponent is not reading anything I said…I already addressed this above. Simply because a mother chooses to take an action does not mean they consented to have a living thing grow inside of them. A mother takes the chance by having sexual intercourse. I take a chance by walking across the seat/touching a toilet bowl. Cross-apply almost my entire hypothetical as her refutation are based upon something I addressed in great detail. Organ donation analogy And once again, I cross-apply my points made underneath attack number 5. There is no inherent contract therefore, she is not responsible. My opponent continues to cite an inherent contract between sexual intercourse and pregnancy, which I have shown to be false. There is no inherent contract. My opponent ignores many of my points and simply tries to avoid refuting them. My opponent drops one of my analogies and completely misinterprets the point of the other two when I explicitly explained how they related. Furthermore, my opponent, in their conclusion, states "when a fetus is conceived, it automatically becomes the mother's, and the father's, responsibility. The mother has no choice but to share her organs with the fetus since she chose to create the fetus." This is exactly what I am arguing against, even if the mother and father made a choice, why can they not have an ability to mitigate the effect. To use the toilet seat analogy, I make a choice when I touch a toilet seat, under my opponent's logic it would be morally unjustified to use medicines to heal myself from any disease. How is this any different? The person(s) in question made a choice. This choice led to ill-effect. Now why is it that I am allowed to help myself while the mother is not? Source: 1. http://www.thelizlibrary.org...