Abortion

. http://www.pbs.org... . http://www.cdc.gov... . http://www.lifenews.com... . http://www.thecrimson.com... . http://www.who.int... I’d also like to point out that it is completely fine on this site to copy and paste opening arguments that are ORIGINAL and CREATED BY THE POSTER. Those arguments WERE NOT plagiarized, as they were arguments that I WROTE in a previous debate. I’d also like voters to know that my opponent has at this point agreed to keep this debate about legalization of abortion, and not morals. Now, onto rebuttals. As you used the term "right to life" you"ve said the unborn is alive. I haven’t said that the unborn is alive, because in my view an unborn child is potential life, therefore the term “right to life” still applies here. Now, I will address my opponent’s analogy between abortion and how a nation deals with its population. First off, my opponent says this, “let’s compare “the unborn/woman’s right to control her body” and “you/Canada’s right to control her country. ” This statement has not been backed up by any sources, Canada is not a living being, so I will assume my opponent talks of the Canadian Government. My opponent states that “Since Canada has the right to control those in her jurisdiction, I propose a law that all non-paying tax residents can be “aborted” on will. ” What right? My opponent hasn’t shown any source that says the gov’t has full control of the nation and its population. My opponent should know the gov’t doesn’t own the country, but a woman owns her body, therefore this analogy is irrelevant, as the gov’t doesn’t have the same control over the nation is governing as a human being has over their body. “Your right to life does not surpass the rights of a country to control her own country. ” I’m sorry, “the rights of a country to control her own country? ” You mean the rights of the gov’t to control the country, and the “country” is a piece of land, not a human body. Not to mention, the fetus does not have a right to life, as it is completely dependent upon the mother’s body, and cannot exist without it. This claim was rejected by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade [1 (IX – A). ] Canada has the right to control her country, and the she has the right to privacy. The right to privacy states that, it is a person’sright to keep a domain around them, which includes all those things that are part of them, such as their body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives them the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts they choose to disclose. It's obvious, "Canada" is not a person, and neither is the government, so they have no right to privacy, as they don’t own the nation. Since this analogy is not an accurate comparison, the right to privacy argument still stands. “With immigrates (rape) Canada should always have the option for elimination” This analogy is incorrect, as immigration is regulated by the Canadian government, which means it is consented to by both parties, immigrant and the Canadian government. Rape is not consented to by both parties. So the point “Raped women should always have the option for abortion,” still stands. Now, moving on. The facts that my opponent provided in their first round actually give no evidence that a developing fetus is a human. My opponent even conceded that the unborn is a developing human, in the following statement. My opponent cannot simply give information about the developmental phase of a fetus, and pretend that’s enough to prove that the fetus has a right to life. “Considering the underwritten information, [the unborn developing] the unborn is human and should be protected as a human. "” I’d also like to address my opponent’s views on biased sources, which contradict themselves. First, my opponent tells me that bias is not wrong. “1. And who taught you bias is wrong? ? Almost every website is biased. evolution. berkeley. edu is biased toward evolution, www. who. int/en/ is biased toward abortion and . http://www.tacobell.com...... is biased towards Taco Bell! ” Then, shortly after, they ask me to provide a source that isn’t biased. “Says who? Please document this assumption from a non-biased site or a peer-reviewed professional journal. ” I would like my opponent to clearly state their view on biased sources in the next round, but until then, I’ll assume that all sources with evidence regardless of opinion are viable in this debate. “These facts are quite relevant because abortions, however rare, still take place after 20 weeks. It is related, it is pertinent and it is important. ” This is my opponent responding to my point of how the majority of abortions take place in the first trimester [12-13 weeks,] which is before the fetus is developed, or capable of functioning independently. Since my opponent specified before that we are talking about legality, the “rare occurrences” should not determine the law. It doesn’t make sense to ban abortions simply because in rare cases they take place after 20 weeks. Not to mention that if the mother waited 20 weeks before abortion, she most likely would’ve wanted the child, and the only reason to abort would be health related issues. Next, my opponent states that laws against murder, rape, incest, embezzlers etc. are not effective. Therefore they say that my unsafe abortions doesn’t stand. However it is on my opponent to show how abortion is a crime, which they haven’t done yet. So my point here still stands. Now I will address the points raised by my opponent in the comments section. Again, not necessarily. Sure he was conceived against her will, but that is her offspring! ! My opponent is saying that a mother might still want to keep a child that was conceived against her will, however this point is irrelevant to this debate, as if the mother wanted to keep the child, abortion wouldn’t even come to mind. "A woman has a right to control over her body"---Midnight Approx. 51% of babies are male. How can it be only her body if it"s male? And the baby has a father" Here my opponent claims that a pregnant women’s body is not actually her own body. It doesn’t matter if the child is a male or female, the body in which it resides is the woman’s body. The father of the baby also has no right to control a woman’s body. Since my opponent has not provided any real evidence, my point still stands. This leads me to one more argument. Thirteenth Amendment This states in section 1 that – Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. [2] Now, it says “involuntary servitude,” which I define below. Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another. Forcing a woman to carry out a pregnancy is obviously involuntary servitude, as it is going against the will of the woman, and she is labouring to benefit an unborn child and the father [at times], and she’s being forced by the state to carry through with the pregnancy. With that I conclude this round, and toss the ball back to my opponent. Sources . https://www.law.cornell.edu... . https://www.law.cornell.edu...