Abortion should be legalized

Introduction Thank you for posting such a strong round in an attempt to negate the resolution. In this round we will refute your arguments. Our goal is to affirm the resolution that abortion should be legal, our opponents must argue the opposite and therefore they negate. We will now refute the negative case. Observations We agree with our opponent’s observations and we agree with the positions in which we will both be arguing under these split burdens. The Fetus is a Human Being Firstly, our opponent’s make a number of assumptions here. They state that we must assume that life exists from the beginning but offer no reason why. They simply tell us to read their source. This is unacceptable since they are not offering the argument, they are simply relying on the source to argue for them. They don’t even quote from the source, they just tell us to read it. It is interesting how our opponents have explained the process of how the embryo is formed however they offer no explanation as to why the embryo is alive. In fact, in our contentions we proved for a 100% fact that the embryo is non-living [1]. Therefore, our opponent’s must prove that the fetus is alive. Attempting to prove that life starts from the very beginning is pointless because it is a scientific truism that this is not the case [1]. The science is interesting and it is the lead up to life but it is not life. Another point worth noting is that our opponent uses Keith Liam Moore’s book as a source of information. Keith Liam Moore was a lecturer who lectures in regards to surgery [2]. His study in embryology comes at a much later period in his life and he has been severely critiqued by atheists and others for basing his research with little evidence and instead making it so that it coincides with the Qu’ran [2]. Without any evidence other than the process of human reproduction (provided by our opponents), we find that their argument fails. Our opponents (again), tell us to look in their sources for more information which is not something that we should be doing. They should be going through their own sources and quoting information from them. Framework Being against abortion whilst simultaneously following libertarianism as your political ideology is completely contradictory. We have shown that biologically the fetus is not living as well as by disproving our opponent’s case. Since libertarians are individualists (as our opponents agree upon), this means that they value the individual in society heavily [3]. By denying them their right to an abortion you are restricting them which is an evident violation of both libertarianism and individualism. Libertarianism is violated simply due to the restrictions - which is the complete opposite of libertarian ideology which states that its objective is to minimize state restriction [4]. Individualism is violated because the individual’s opinion is not being valued. We will re-state what we said in our initial framework since this is the perfect scenario in which it can be used. Capitalism magazine explains this well by saying, “A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e., there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church).” [4] This the final line of this clearly shows that the women is not owned by the state which is what the negative case essentially argues. This perfectly follows on from my explanation of ideological violations previously stated. It shows refers to the stupidity of state restriction at the end and the rest of it shows that the women is the individual and therefore she has control and authority over her own body - thus explaining why the negative case violates individualism. Need to prevent murder Our opponents states that we must prove that murder is not bad however this is unnecessary since we have already proven the fetus to be non-living. Since the fetus is non-living and the definition of murder is specific to humans [5], this means that the termination of the fetus is not murder. Promote Discretion This completely ignores cases of rape and teenager irresponsibility. People can have children from the age of 12. Sometimes even lower [6]. Almost half of all teenage girls have been forced into doing some sort of sexual act [7]. This evidently wasn’t considered in our opponent’s case since they reference to people needing to learn from their actions. Since our opponents have been requesting that we answer many questions throughout the course of their round, let us ask our opponents just one question. Did Lina Medina - the youngest ever pregnant women aged just 5 years old [6] - deserve to deliver her pregnancy without the option to an abortion? In regards to everyone else (that this contention was aimed at), this is also a faulty argument. Firstly, it violates the framework which is based on libertarianism. Libertarians value the individual [4] and by restricting the individual of an abortion so that they can ‘learn their lesson’ is a complete and evident violation of their own argument. This contradictory position presented by our opponents is enough to presume Pro alone. The resolution is affirmed vote Pro! Conclusion To conclude, we believe that we have successfully refuted our opponent’s contentions and framework through strong and reliable evidence. We thank our opponents for their acceptance to participate in this debate. As previously stated our opponents have provided a contradictory framework to their contentions, thus concluding that the resolution is to be affirmed and voters ought to vote Pro based on this. Sources [1]https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org... [4]https://en.wikipedia.org... [5]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [6]https://en.wikipedia.org... [7]http://lifecharity.org.uk...