Abortion

First off, I'd like to apologize to my opponent for skipping the last round. I didn't realize that this debate had a 2 hour debating period instead of the typical 72. That said, my opponent has also forfeited a round so the conduct is even and no side has an advantage. Second, I'd like to point out to my opponent that I am in fact a female, so any future references of "sir" should be avoided. Let's move on to my rebuttal... 1A. Con begins with, "is it not that most abortions are from young teens or women that were just having sex just to be having it and were irreasponsible." Obviously this is horrible spelling and grammar and barely makes Con's argument comprehensible. However I believe that Con is trying to imply that women generally get pregnant because they're irresponsible. In fact, only 21.2% of all abortions (roughly 1 out of 5) are performed on teenagers [1]. Even taking into account that only 1/5 women who seek abortion are teens, we still have to keep in mind that sometimes contraception fails, rape occurs, etc. and that accounts for many of the pregnancies in that 1/5 demographic. Nevertheless, even if we are to believe Con that unwanted pregnancy occurs only or mostly to irresponsible teens (which I've already proven is untrue), it still doesn't explain why abortion should be illegal. Even if irresponsible teens made up 90% of the people who sought abortions, I still don't understand why it shouldn't be an option. Con never explains this. If his answer is "they don't deserve it" or "to teach them a lesson"... or anything along those lines... he'll have a really hard time defending why he thinks the State is responsible for parenting its citizens. 1B. Con's second argument sounds something like this: ""No life should be taken,without probable cause." that statement automatically ruled out rape even accidentally got pregnant with the condom and pill is also a probable cause. That one statement had a meaning and may i ask why this statement must be defended when its quiet obvious , kill someone with out a just,cause is wrong." Obviously I cannot make any sense of this statement whatsoever, but will try to refute it as best I can despite the grammatical errors making it nearly impossible to grasp. I suppose my response to this would have to be that Con seems to defend abortion in the case of rape, but not accidents. This of course is an easy argument to tear. If Con's contention is that no life should be taken (because life is sacred) then why should the life suffer just because it came into fruition via a rape? For instance, if my mom's pregnancy with me resulted in a rape, should I be punished or held accountable even though it wasn't my fault or choice? That is the distinction that permissible abortion in rape cases only makes. Moreover, if people can only get legal abortions in cases of rape, I feel this is enough to presume that more accusations of rape will begin to occur - whether they're true or not. A woman would lie and say she was raped just to get a legalized abortion, which could have devastating effects on innocent men. 2. Next my opponent makes it clear that he and I disagree on personhood. He believes that one becomes a person at conception and I believe one becomes a person when they achieve consciousness (about 6 months into the pregnancy). He also makes it obvious that he believes in a soul; I do not. So let me begin this rebuttal by pointing out that whether or not a soul exists is actually irrelevant to this debate. Even if a soul doesn't exist, personhood does exist, so personhood should be the subject of debate here. Con offers that the embryonic stage is just a stage of personhood; however, fails to mention what personhood is. If we don't have a description or definition of personhood, then how can we agree what the stages of it are? Dictionary.com states that the definition of person is a human being, but that the philosophical definition is a self-conscious or rational being [2]. Right there we can see that "consciousness" is part of the definition at a mental or medical level. Animals are not privileged to human rights because they do not posses human consciousness. Similarly, if a living, developing human being has not yet developed consciousness, then it has not yet reached personhood and thus not subject to a person's rights. For proof in our legal system, consider the fact that our legal system does not require a father to pay child support to a woman while she is pregnant with the fetus. Instead, the man is required to pay child support once the baby is born. This is because support is necessary for the well-being and rights of the CHILD, whereas abortion deals with the well-being and rights of the mother. The mother is required to no legal compensation while pregnant, because she is responsible only for herself - not herself and another being. It is not until she's responsible for another being upon birth (in which the baby is conscious) that the father has a legal obligation to the child. This supports a psychological and legal instead of a spiritual argument in my favor. [ Pro's Arguments Contd. / Re-cap ] So, I have already fulfilled my burden in arguing against the instigator's resolution. However in addition to my other arguments, I'd like to offer some more contentions. Abortion is an issue of rights: rights to privacy, medical sovereignty, property, etc. Requiring a woman to take unnecessary risks with her life and body - and pregnancy ALWAYS greatly increases medical risks - just because Con wrongfully assumes that every pregnancy is the result of an irresponsible woman -- or for some reason that the government has a right to physically force innocent people to carry children -- is indicative of slavery and a blatant infringement upon her rights. A woman is not property; she has a right to choose abortion. A fetus is not a person and thus not deserving of a person's rights. Also, the government does not have the right to dictate one's medical choices. Criminalizing abortion leads to back-alley abortions and unsafe and unsanitary conditions. These procedures will also promote and enhance crime, and further corrupt, pollute and slow down our legal system. It will also make a lot of people criminals unnecessarily. Furthermore, criminalizing abortion makes a bad statement to the feminist movement promoting women's rights. It is against social progression and does not support the values of our country; most people believe in legalized abortion. In a January 2007 Gallup Poll, 59 percent of the public either believes abortion laws should remain as they are (36 percent) or be made less strict (23 percent) [3]. For all of these reasons and more, I stand in affirmation of legalized abortion. [1] http://www.abortionno.org... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://www.americanprogress.org...