Kleptin Tournament: Abortion

1. A Fetus is Not a Human Being A pre-mature baby has been released by the womb. This means that according to the mother's body, the baby is ready to be born. Now, if a doctor wishes to deliver a pre-mature baby because of health concerns, then I see no issue (the baby has to develop into a capable human being using machines for a few more days instead of the mother's womb). A fetus, no matter what the time line, should be allowed to be aborted. If we disallow abortion at any moment of pregnancy, we are barring women from performing abortions for their health (be it mental or physical). If we make it illegal to abort a baby 1 day before it is due, then we are making it illegal for mothers to abort who will die if they deliver. My opponent must take this into consideration. Also, it is apparent that children develop, that adults develop, etc. I addressed this in my previous round. My opponent should remember that there is a difference between a human child developing into a human teenager, and a fetus developing into a human. To end this point and answer my opponent's last question: Exit of the womb is not arbitrary. The child exits the womb when the mother's body (or the child) biologically is ready to exit the womb. Babies that are delivered pre-maturely are done forcefully and then kept on machines to survive. There is something to be said about full development. 2. Potential Life is Not Equal to Actual Life I don't understand how my point was negated what so ever. Can my opponent elaborate, please? A fetus does not constitute as a human life. A fetus is a fetus. Also, a fetus will not develop on it's own. A fetus needs the body of a female in order to develop. A fetus is not independent. In addition, see point 1. 3. Anti-Abortion Laws Infringe on a Woman's Rights Again, my opponent is assuming that all women who have abortions are "irresponsible." Must I repeat? Rape victims, accidents, health concerns, etc. Not all women who have abortions are irresponsible. 4. Illegal Abortions are Dangerous To begin, I ask the judges to acknowledge that my opponent's sources were in fact bias and thus not worthy of being proper sources in this debate. My opponent should find an unbiased medical association to back his claims instead of extremest Christian propaganda groups. My opponent also wishes to not allow rape victims to abort a fetus that will cause them tremendous physical, psychological, and financial burdens that they did not choose. There are plenty of cases where couples use both condoms and pills and still end up with a child. People who take pre-cautions should not be limited in their choices just because some groups consider aborting a fetus a murder. Aborting a fetus is not a murder, and thus these people are committing no wrong. Also, if my opponent is offering the "morning after" pill for women, he should re-think his values. This pill is considered the "abortion" pill by many pro-life people as it stifles fertilization. Actually, all contraceptives in some way stifle fertilization. So why my opponent is really advocating is abstinence. In other words - my opponent wishes to bar the act of sex from billions of people to use as only a form of breeding. Obviously he knows nothing of human nature, and how sex helps your health. People who have frequent sex have: 1. Better heart health 2. Live longer 3. More energy 4. Lower rates of cancer 5. healthier sperm 6. fewer menopause symptoms [http://www.cnn.com...] etc. etc. The Large benefits of sex for humans is enough to make the thought of mandatory abstinence for all laughable (especially if the only concern is aborting a fetus). 5. A Human's Essence is Not Premeditedly Determined by Some Destiny This is not Christian country. There may be Christians living here, and a hand full of the founding fathers may have been Christian, but this is not a theocracy. This is a democracy. This country is home to many religions (and non-religious people). We have the separation of Church and State in this country. You can not make a theocratic law. There must be other reasoning behind your law other than religious mandate. --------------------------- 1. Adoptions Exists Sure, a child would say "of course I'd rather have been born!" because they were born and can make that decision. If they were never born, they would never have had this problem. Faulty reasoning on my opponent's side. Also, if that is the case, then my opponent must give up allowing mother's to have an abortion if their life is at stake. Those children, under his reasoning, would have wanted a life as well. Also, a medical study on orphanages being bad for children's psychology: http://medind.nic.in... 2. Abortion is unhealthy for a mother Again, illegal abortions are less safe than professionally done abortions. If the mother is going to have an abortion done anyway, offering her a safer alternative is better then having her perform an illegal abortion that will either kill her or leave her physically damaged. Also, my opponent's Reardon studies are biased (as I explained in the previous round.) So ignore his information he has obtained from David Reardon. Also, can my opponent provide studies that we can actually read? None of these studies are showing up on Google. If he could please link them, I can review them and can offer an appropriate rebuttal. This is both necessary for myself and for the judges (as they should know what they are judging, and should be able to judge the sources). Thank you, Regards, Vi Veri