Abortion

Thanks to Pro for their response. I'll jump right into rebuttals. My opponent did not attempt to refute my claim that a fetus is a human life. Therefore, I must assume they accept this fact, which makes the defense of their position quite problematic. Pro must now demonstrate why a human life in the womb does not possess human rights. Pro says that abortion is merely a "side effect" and that an aborted baby simply "happens to die" from natural causes. It's hard not to construct a straw man here, because this claim really is absurd. The language my opponent uses suggests that abortions are painless accidents: a medical procedure is done, a baby happens to fall out as a "side effect," and "if the fetus happens to die" then, oh well, at least it was from natural causes. Pro actually says "if the fetus happens to die," as if there are other alternatives".but there aren't. Every abortion results in the destruction of a living organism, there is no "if" involved. I am not satisfied if a fetus dies safely from natural causes - I don't want unborn children to die at all! Next, Pro dodges my Unborn Victims of Violence Act example by saying the mother did not yet wish to [destroy] the fetus. Yet they seem to miss the part where our notional accident victim was driving on her way to the abortion clinic - she absolutely did wish to destroy the fetus! So, according to the law, one hour before the abortion the fetus has human rights, the violation of which can be legally considered homicide or manslaughter. But inexplicably, the second the mother walks through the clinic door, that very same fetus somehow no longer has human rights. My point here was to further reinforce the fact that a fetus is recognized by law as a human life, which, once again, Pro did not dispute. Laws - I was not suggesting that Pro thinks laws are pointless. I was merely showing that Pro's logic is flawed when applied to other human activities. It's Special Pleading to admit that neither abortion nor fraud will stop if made illegal, yet asking only fraud to remain illegal. The idea that legal abortions are safer is irrelevant - we're still talking about the destruction of a human life with legal rights. Using this argument is like saying legal thefts would be more efficient, better planned, and less violent. But that misses the point - it's still stealing! Biological Parasite - It's true that Pro never used the term "unwanted parasite." But they did say that the "parasite" fetus uses "another human's organs without his/her permission." (See Round 1). I interpreted using organs without permission as an unwanted action, thus "unwanted parasite." Anyway, Pro defines a parasite as something that feeds off its host without giving anything in return. If that's the case, then a fetus is not a parasite. Scientific studies have proven that a fetus absolutely gives many health benefits back to the mother's body. For example, fetal stem cells have been found passing through the placenta into mothers' bodies and attaching to diseased organs like livers and thyroids, subsequently repairing those organs [1]. No one would deny this is a beneficial gift to a mother's body from the fetus. So, according to Pro's own definition, an unborn child cannot be a parasite. There's nothing hilarious about the sex/smoking comparison. I'm not suggesting that people only have sex when they deliberately want a child. I'm simply pointing out that having consensual sex is a choice that involves various risks and consequences. Like smoking, choosing to engage in sex means choosing to accept those risks and consequences. The most obvious of those risks is the possibility of pregnancy. Abortion is not "alleviating risk." It is choosing to destroy a growing human after accepting the risk of creating it by having sex. To my point about the elderly and social security, Pro responds that it's merely a government expense rather than an individual one. Well, where does the government get its money from? Individual tax payers. We all pay for each retired person's social security benefits. I thought that implication was fairly obvious, but I apologize if it wasn't. Even so, returning again to the fact that my opponent has not denied that a fetus is a human life, are they therefore suggesting that human life is not worth $3,500-$7,000? My argument is very simple: P1: If abortion ends a human life, then it's wrong in most cases. P2: Abortion kills a fetus. P3: A fetus is a human life. C1: Abortion ends a human life, it is wrong in most cases. To refute this, Pro must prove that a fetus is either not human or that it does not possess the human right to life. Looking forward to the next round. [1] https://www.lifesitenews.com...