Abortion

Thanks con.Legality & lawful legitimacyThe legality of something doesn't mean that it's necessarily true in reality, but it does lend itself legal and lawful legitimacy. As your opening statement shows, you've argued that abortion is wrong on the grounds that it violates the lawful or inalienable legal rights of the fetus. In round 1 you said: "...the right to life is an inalienable right given to every innocent human being, therefore, abortion, as the direct result of the killing of an innocent human child, violates the inalienable right to life. Thus, abortion is wrong." The inalienable right to life was given by the Declaration of Independence. A legal document. So essentially, you're trying to show that abortion is wrong by appealing to legal legitimacy. The problem is that abortion is legally legitimate. Here's how:Laws in the United states operate under the authority of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Due Process clause in the Constitution protects a woman's right to privacy during pregnancy. This gives her the legal right to have an abortion. This leads me to the next section.A living human being Con defines life as: "A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, reproduce. I don't take any issue with this. In fact, I would find it hard to believe if anyone argued that a fetus wasn't "alive". There are many other things that are alive too: fungus, plant life, insects, bacteria, and a host of other single or multi-cellular organisms. Con argues that a living human being is made the moment that a zygote uses DNA from the mother and father. We've established that this microscopic glob is living, but can it be considered a human being? Would you consider something without emotion, without consciousness, and without the ability to feel anything as a "living human being"? These distinctly human traits begin to develop during the third trimester as the prefrontal cortex is being formed. Why should something be considered a living 'human being' if the element of 'human-ness' never came into existence?Furthermore, it's important to make a distinction between living tissue and a living organism. Organs are an example of living human tissue. If a person is declared clinically brain dead his organs can still continue to be alive. So is a fetus better described as living tissue or a living organism?Here's the definition of an organism: "a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes." http://dictionary.reference.com...Since a fetus cannot live on its own until about 24 weeks into pregnancy as it develops its major organs, it cannot maintain its various vital processes without dying. Thus, as the age of viability shows, and along with agreement from the courts, the fetus cannot be considered a separate entity in the sense that they are their own live organism. The fetus is living tissue, and it's made from humans, but it can't be considered a living human being as its own organism nor can it be considered a "human being" philosophically. There are more issues to consider in the next section.Additional argumentsSince con is arguing that abortion is fundamentally wrong, is it still wrong to have an abortion in cases where:1) The mother will die if she is not allowed to abort her babyThis is actually fairly common. 15 out of every 100,000 pregnancies are ectopic pregnancies that will kill the mother as well as the fetus if she doesn't have an abortion. So either:A) the mother has an abortion and the fetus diesor B) Both the mother and the fetus dies.Which is it con?2) Rape and forced pregnancyShould we deny a victim of rape her right to abort her forced pregnancy? No doubt, the emotional scars would be intensified with the helpless feeling of having to carry the rapist's baby. Not only that, but some states grant the rapist visitation rights. 3) The baby has terminal deformities due to incest or other causesWe have to think about the life of the future child too. If the child is destined to die young and painfully due to terminal deformities, why is it better to force that child to live out his miserable life and die painfully?Back to you con.