Abortion is Morally Right

“My opponent has made unsupported claims here. I know that a fetus doesn't have emotions, I know that it isn't sentient. How does that lead one to believe that a fetus is not a human and does not deserve the same protections as any other human? It sounds like you're proposing: Any organism that doesn't have emotions or sentience at the present moment- can be destroyed. ” Yes. That is what I am proposing. Many agree that bacteria and viruses have no emotions. They are living things, and yet, we kill them every time we wash our hands. However, I never hear anyone say, “You killed a bacterium! That's murder! ” Bacteria lack sentience, and therefore are not human. Early fetuses are the same way. “Consider that the earliest stages of development are not the only time that a human lacks emotion and consciousness. We go emotionless and unconscious for 8 hours a day, in fact. ” That isn’t true. Our minds are active during sleep-especially REM(rapid eye movement)sleep. During REM sleep, we have dreams, and in those dreams, we feel emotions. This is especially true in vivid dreams. During REM sleep, one’s breathing may become irregular and blood pressure may increase. So we actually DO feel emotions in our sleep. My point still stands. “Where does this fetus become human? ” At about week 6, the baby starts to give off brainwaves, meaning it can think. After this the baby starts to develop the ability to move, smile, hiccup, dream, etc. So in my opinion, the baby becomes “human” on the 6th week. I believe abortions must be, and can be, done before then. “You admit that humans are sentient, but you don't recognize the consequence that this means that people cannot be traded one for another. Murdering 10,000 people isn't justified if it saves 10,000. They are not the same. Every person is inherently unique. Not because they are currently conscious, because they have the capacity for it. ” I absolutely support abortion before 6 weeks. Before then, the fetus is not human. And it wouldn’t be ‘murder,’ considering that murder only refers to humans. My opponent also makes the case that each fetus is unique and deserves rights. In terms of DNA, that is true. However, one’s DNA and how one looks isn’t all of what makes a person unique. One’s emotions and personality make the most difference. The fetus doesn’t have emotions yet, and personality comes from experience. I’d also like to point out that initially the embryo of fish, chickens, dogs, lizards, and humans are hard to distinguish. Forget about whether each human is unique; see if you can tell the difference between an embryo of a human and the embryo of another animal! Uniqueness isn't relevant at that point. My opponent says that because the fetus has the capacity for emotion and consciousness, it is human. My opponent also provides a list to support this: HUMAN: Conception -> Embryo -> Fetus -> baby -> infant -> child -> adolescent -> young adult -> adult -> senior However, my opponent also misses the stage sperm and egg. Some forms of birth control use “spermicide” that kills sperm. Despite the fact that sperm have the capacity to become a baby, no sane person that calls that murder and says sperm need rights, too. Thus, capacity is irrelevant to the debate. “You might as well be saying that if you destroy a farmers crop of corn, providing the same volume of potatoes would be just compensation. Or saying it's a morally superior action to wipe out an entire civilization if a larger population takes its place. ” In the farmer situation, I would definitely be OK with being paid the same value in potatoes. In the civilization example, if the larger population was saved because the other civilization died, I’d be OK with that, too. Also, if the new civilization was more intelligent and more productive, I agree with swiping out the other one. However, this claim is a bit irrelevant because not all fetuses will be aborted. The ones whose parents love them and think of them as their own would be brought into the world. My opponet also thinks his position is superior because: 1) Human life starts from conception. I never said that life does not start from conception. I said that in the last round. I’m saying that humanity itself does not start from conception. All of our feelings, emotions, and personalities must be developed. One may argue that at conception, the fetus has the capacity to develop these things, but then again, so do egg and sperm. 2) All human life should be protected from aggression. I agree with this also, but I do not think fetuses are humans yet. 3) A human from conception to birth is innocent of any wrongdoing. Doing something wrong and making mistakes is part of being human. I never said it did anything right or wrong. Before it becomes human, (6 weeks in my opinion) the fetus cannot move, think, feel emotions, or do anything. It simply is. 4) Any attack on that human is aggression. This is false, as fetuses are not human. My opponent also says I cannot sustain my argument because: 1) She cannot adequately define what a human being is. A human being has emotions and feels pain. A human makes mistakes. A human can think, a human can move, and as my opponent said, is sentient. A young fetus does not have all of these things, and therefore, is not human. 2) She asserts that humans are equally interchangeable when they are not. As I have said many times, fetuses are not human. They are not very unique before they are human. Humans are not equally interchangeable, but in my opinion, young fetuses are. 3) She relies on extremely optimistic results for stem cell cures. Stem cell research is not simply “optimistic,” because studies show that it can cure cancer. According to Phys. org, human embryonic cells can be coaxed to become cancer-killing cells. It is not a matter of chance. It can be done, but only if we choose to do it. 4) She appears to propose that humans should only be protected because they have feelings and sentience, when it's clear that all humans transitionally lose feelings and sentience. When humans dream or lose consciousness, their subconscious brain comes into play and they still feel emotions. It’s evident that human beings do NOT lose their conscience. Lastly, my opponent says, “My position is superior because it's simpler, coherant, comprehensive, consistent, and doesn't rely on subjective valuation. ” Simpler does not mean better. Subjective valuation actually gives me the upper hand, because you need to use your brain to figure things out. Simple without having to use your brain appeals to those who aren’t willing to think (no offense). So in the end, subjective valuation improves an argument. Sources: . http://www.clevelandclinic.org... . http://www.janeteresa.com... . http://www.nrlc.org... . http://www.exploratorium.edu... . http://phys.org...