Abortion Should Be Legal

Introduction: My opponent has not offered a very substantial argument so I am going to limit myself to what is necessary to address his refutations. I will not be bringing additional arguments into this round because I believe Arguments One and Two already adequately defend my case. Argument 1: I will first note that no counterargument to my definition of personhood has been offered. My opponent has thus far concede that my definition of personhood is sufficient. The only counterargument that is offered here is a reference to this first argument. My actual point about that is considered a person (and thus possessing rights) has not been contested and will stand when my opponent's argument is refuted. Argument 2: My opponent has conceded this argument, but I do not consider this a mark against him since I did not know whether it was applicable to his position. I urge voters to disregard this point and focus on Argument 1. Now, to address my opponent's contention: Contention 1: What my opponent offers it the classic argument of potentiality. He says if a fetus may become a human, it should have the rights of a human. By human I assume he means person since I am not disputing that a fetus is a human, only that all humans should not be considered people. Moving on, however: The fact that a fetus has the potential to have be a person does not give it the rights a person has. This point is fairly easy to understand. I have the (uncertain) potential to one day become the President of the United States. The President, of course, is Commander in Chief and has the right to command the United States Army. Does this give me the right, at this very moment, to command the United States Army? Of course not. Even the President Elect, who is certain barring terrible circumstances to become President, does not command the army until his inauguration. This may seem like an extreme example, but the argument is simple: rights are not granted based on the potentiality of having them. Prisoners do not walk free because they will one day be released from jail. The rights of a person are granted upon the status of being a person, not on the potentiality of being a person. The excessive certainty with which my opponent claims a fetus "WILL" become a person is of course hyperbolic. A woman could walk out of a clinic after being denied an abortion and be struck by a car immediately. There is not certainty that a fetus will become a person, and even if there was the rights of a person would still not be granted until the fetus actually achieved that status. By this reasoning, ever human gamete (including eggs that may never even have the potential to be fertilized) out to have some form of rights because they have some potential to become people. The difference between a fetus and an unfertilized gamete varies only in degree. Both are nonpeople which have the potential to become people. That fact that one has complete diploid human DNA and the other does not is irrelevant, as I have demonstrated in Argument 1. Conclusion: Anything that has the potential to be a person is does not have the rights of a person. A fetus is not a person and regardless of "potential" it does not have the rights of a person. I would consider it an extremely bad idea to start determining value based on potential future value. Otherwise, I will be adding that this is my medical opinion because I have the potential to someday become a doctor. Sources: I drew further from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I also cite myself, potential Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge University; my PhD dissertation was written on value theory.