Kleptin Tournament: Abortion

As per the tournament director's decree, the resolution is, "that abortion should be illegal in the United States except in the instances when the mother's life is at stake." ---- Counterarguments ---- 1. A Fetus is Not a Human Being. My opponent seems to believe a developing human being is not a human being. Under this logic, she says it is okay to murder this developing human being. So, I must ask: what is the true difference between a child one day before being released from the womb and a child a day after being released from the womb? And if my opponent's logic is to remain consistent, would it be morally permissible to kill a premature baby? The answer is of course no. Again, the line between being released from the womb and not being released from the womb is completely arbitrary, because everyone is developing. A child is developing. A baby a day after being released from the womb is developing. So too is a baby a day before being released, or a week before, or a month, or two months, or... A human being is developing since the moment of conception. To stop such development is murder. I want to ask my opponent very explicitly: in what way is being released from the womb not an arbitrary moment in the time of development? Clearly the moment that I have defined (conception) is not arbitrary; it is the moment when development starts. So, what is so special about being released from the womb? 2. Potential Life is Not Equal to Actual Life My opponent has conceded that a fetus is not potential life but actual life. Where the disagreement lies is in whether a fetus constitutes *human* life. But this is the first point, not the second. Point negated. But just to repeat, the reason a fetus constitutes human life is that being released from the womb is a completely arbitrary distinction. Again, what is the difference between a baby before being released from the womb and a day after? Nothing. Extend that all the way to conception. And that makes sense. If left alone, a fetus will develop. If left alone, a child will also develop. But sperm cells if left alone will not develop into anything. That is, they will not development unless they come into contact with an egg. That is, conception. 3. Anti-Abortion Laws Infringe on a Woman's Rights As per the tournament director's decree, this point is moot. Having the abortion when the fetus threatens the life of the mother is called self-defense, but having an abortion simply because you were irresponsible is murder--just like how killing a random stranger on the street would be murder while killing someone who was going to kill you first if did nothing about it is self-defense. 4. Illegal Abortions are Dangerous In response to my statement that those who engage in unprotected (heterosexual) sex are knowingly accepting the chance of pregnancy, my opponent stated, "Accidents happen. Even when heterosexual couples use protection, they still have the chance of the condom breaking, etc. Also, rape does occure [sic]." But my opponent seems to be missing my entire point. I stated that heterosexual couples should accept the risks if they choose to engage in sex. My opponent stated that condoms break. Well, no duh. Couples should also accept the risk that a condom can break. Seriously, what ever happened to social responsibility? Take care of your own actions. If you mess up, you mess up, but there is no need to kill human life. And besides, the pill has a less than one percent failure rate. ("Failure rate" refers to the chance a form of contraception will fail within a year.) When used in combination with the condom, which has a failure rate of three percent, the chance of an accident is negligible to the individual: less than .03% rate of failure.. And insofar as rape goes, let me say this: need we add another tragedy to more tragedy? Murder on top of rape? A mother knowing that she not only has been raped but has murdered her child as well? My opponent goes on to state that my sources are biased. Thus I ask her: what's so biased about them? What exactly about their science is faulty? What statistical data was too sloppily recorded? If anything, these highly respected doctors should be commended for their research, as they are clearly experts, even my opponent admits--just "biased ones," she thinks, because they happen to make money off their beliefs. But who doesn't? Let's say a doctor tells you to eat less junk food. Should you ignore the doctor, simply because he or she makes money off of making people healthy? No, that would be silly. Of course you listen to the doctor. 5. A Human's Essence is Not Premeditatedly Determined by Some Destiny. God defines objective morals for us. God says murder is wrong. Therefore, acts of murder, such as abortion, are objectively wrong. I mean, what's so hard to understand? Besides, we were founded as a Christian nation, with laws deeply rooted in Christianity, and it should remain that way. For example, the first thing the First Continental Congress did was perform a Christian prayer, ending with: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen" (source: http://www.afn.org...). John Adams stated, "The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." In 1892 the Supreme Court stated, "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people.... This is a Christian nation." Furthermore, the reason people like Thomas Jefferson created the idea of separation of church and state in the first place was that they feared that the government would dilute the importance of God and that the church would be weakened by the state. The silly idea of the first amendment in separating church and state was to get rid of the evident fact that we are a Christian nation, as a 1799 court stated, "By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion." As President George H. W. Bush eloquently put it, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." These are word I think we should live by. ---- Arguments ---- 1. Adoption Exists My opponent sates that orphanages are psychologically damaging but provides no evidence to support this claim. Even still, is murder an appropriate reaction to perhaps an unfortunate upbringing? Should all pregnant mothers in, for example, Darfur abort? If you asked an orphan whether he or she would rather never have been born or be stuck in the orphanage even until the age of eighteen, I'm pretty sure the orphan would choose the orphanage. In fact, I think most children in America would choose the orphanage. My opponent can correct me if I'm wrong. 2. Abortion is unhealthy for a mother My opponent wants sources. Conveniently, unlike for the other sources, she did not ask for these. I suspect she perceives these to be valid. - Postabortal Pelvic Infection Associated with Chlamydia Tracomatis and the Influence of Humoral Immunity," by Allan Osser, MD, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, November 1984, p669-703 - "Induced Abortion: A Risk Factor for Placental Praevia." by Jeffrey M Barrett, MD, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, December 1981, p769 - Aborted Women, Reardon, p106 She continues by saying, "All that professional abortions offer is a SAFER way to perform an abortion that the woman would be performing in a much more hazardous way that leads to either immediate death or mutilation." But that's just the thing, isn't it? Under "Illegal Abortions are Dangerous," I've shown th