Abortion

Thanks to Con for this debate, and to discuss this important issue. I will use this round to define some key terms, to rebut Con, and then to discuss more broadly why abortion should be legal.DEFINITIONSWhile I accept Con's definition of "Cell," I would like to point out that a cell is not necessarily alive. As the wording of the definition implies, a cell that is not functionally independent is not actually considered alive. If I can show that an embryo or fetus is not "functionally independent," I will have invalidated Con's first contention re: a fertilized egg being life.Other terms I'd like to define at this time:Abortion - Is externally induced termination of the pregnancy designed to result in the destruction of the embryo or fetusFunctionally - practically, actually, in terms of functioningIndependent - not requiring or relying on something elseLegal - permitted by lawEmbryo/Fetus - An embryo is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development...In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. ten weeks after the last menstrual period or LMP), and from then it is instead called a fetus.One final observation: given the way functionally and independent are defined, we can merge these two definitions to say that the phrase "functionally independent" connotes that something is "not reliant on something else in terms of the way it functions."REBUTTALSContention One: It's alive!Let's say an egg is fertilized and attaches to the womb. At this point, it cannot survive on its own--if eject from the womb or cut off from the nutrients the mother provides, it will die. It is therefore not functionally independent--it is not alive. Studies agree that most fetuses are not able to survive outside of the womb until at least around 23 weeks. For instance, some studies found that just 30% of fetuses born at 23 weeks survived the ordeal [1]. Other analyses found that 49% of babies born between 22 and 25 perished as a result of complication arising from premature birth [2]. Frankly, fetuses are not functionally independent (independently able to fulfill the functions of a human organism) until about 5 months in--and even that estimate is generous.Contention Two: AdoptionIn an instance where the mother faces two choices: abort, or die herself, adoption is the least of her concerns. While I would certainly encourage mothers to consider adoption, that is not always viable in each circumstance. Moreover, adoption facilities may not be available for all families in the U.S., nor can we say that adoption is always good. In a county or state where adoption agencies have reputations for abuse or misconduct, or where overburden foster parents are commonplace, a mother may reasonably judge that her child would not be well cared for if given up for adoption. If "mercy killings"--eliminating someone's pain through death--don't seem morally repugnant, why not mercy abortions?I really don't seem much difference between the two, in fact. Let's take a look at this example: say a girl is 12, with a grave disease. The doctors say she could live 20 more years, but she is in constant, tremendous pain, which could only be alleviated through doping her up on medication. Can she reasonably be euthanized? Yes, insofar as it is more cruel to let someone live a life of constant suffering than quickly ending her life. Even medicated, her quality of life would be so bad as to be not worth living, namely because she would be so heavily drugged, that she would not be able to do anything of productive value. Now, let's compare this with a mercy abortion. Let's say a mother lives in desperate paucity in the slums of some city. She knows if she has her child, her child will live a life of indigence and pain. She also knows that local adoption officials abuse the children in their care and avoid punishment by the authorities through kickbacks and bribes. Either way, her child would live a life of constant trauma and suffering. Con the mother reasonably abort? Yes, insofar as it may be more cruel to let someone live a life of constant suffering than quickly ending the life. Even with a small chance of success, on balance, her child is likely to live a rotten, pain-laden existence, which she does not wish to inflict upon him.Contention Three: Parents take a RiskSo, what Con is saying is that two consenting adults should be responsible for their own actions. So, if two parents take the risk of having sex, which then results in a pregnancy, shouldn't those adults be responsible for the care of the resultant child?We can turn this against Con fairly easily. If he wants parents to be responsible for their choices, then they are responsible for the child. Adoption is a way to shirk that responsibility--it is a way to say, we cannot cope with our own creation, so we need to hand it off to someone else. Therefore, by Con's logic, any adult who cannot afford to raise a child should not have sex. I think the absurdity of this position is pretty clear.Contention Four: Risk of AbortionCon's source is from a super right-of-center blog and is not to be trusted. But even if we do buy that "10% of women...suffer from complications," why does this matter? The women consent to the procedure, they consent to the risks. Wasn't it Con who implied that if you consent to sex, you consent to the risk of pregnancy and accept its resultant burdens?MY CASEContention One: Justified HomicideIn the U.S. lethal force is justified in defense of yourself or others. Therefore, if a mother's life is endanger because of her pregnancy, she is justified in aborting. This argument works EVEN IF a fetus or embryo is human--and the humanity of a fetus/embryo is still very much in doubt.Contention Two: Rape and PrivacyJudith Thompson, in her famous essay, "A Defense of Abortion," uses the following analogy in her argument: "You wake up in bed one morning and find yourself next to an unconscious violinist...He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you and plugged his circulatory system into yours so that your kidneys can filter blood for both of you. You call the doctor and he tells you how sorry he is that you were kidnapped. He tells you that in 9 months they will have what they need to heal the violinist, but if you choose to unplug before then, the violinist will die." Why is that your sovereignty over your body is suddenly curtailed by the fact that someone else might die? The law, in Roe v. Wade, asserted that you have a right to privacy, and you cannot get more private than what lies underneath your skin. What if the doctor came back and said, "Oh, I misspoke. You need to be connect 19 years, not 9 months." Surely, you could disconnect yourself from the violinist at some point before those 19 years were up. The law cannot ask or compel you to live with such an invasion of privacy and bodily integrity for that length of time--it is an unreasonable violation of your rights. If we grant that, then by what rationale can we deny that you have the right to disconnect from the violinist before 9 months? Yes, it is a shorter timespan, but if time is the deciding factor, then where do we draw then line--after how long can you disconnect? If that question cannot be answered fairly and non-arbitrarily, then we must either (1) permit you to disconnect at any time, or (2) deny that you have any right to disconnect at all, which seems, on face, extreme. If we accept (1) as our answer, then we must allow abortions in the analogous instance of rape.SOURCES1 - http://www.marchofdimes.com...#2 - http://www.nejm.org...Thank you! I turn things over to Con...