Abortion

Observation- Abortion which is justified in one case, wins me the debate. My opponent"s case is based on the idea that fetuses, while brain dead, are living. This is false idea is contrary to the medical definition of brain dead which encompasses the entity not being alive. Citing http://www.webmd.com..., "Q. Is "brain-dead" the same as dead? A. Yes. Many people think death happens when the heart stops beating and the lungs stop breathing, but machines can support those functions when the brain no longer can, Tawil says." So what this quote does is explains a misconception regarding when someone is alive or dead, and then stating what brain dead constitutes. How someone is measures brain waves are through EEGs, "Our brain contains huge number of individual cells called neurons. Neurons communicate with each other through electrical firings, and individual neuron firing is too weak to be detected at a distance. However, large number of thousands or millions of neurons with synchronized activities can be detected on various scalp locations and are called brain waves (measured in cycles per second, or Hertz) as shown in an EEG (electroencephalogram) chart. The various brain wave frequencies are studied extensively and generally correspond to different types of brain activities.", thus meaning if someone has no EEGs showing, then they are considered brain dead, therefore dead. http://www.bioshare.info... I took evidence from a pro-life website which states, "A baby's brainwaves can be detected at 6 weeks from conception." http://prolifeaction.org.... Ignoring the word baby, they stated that before 6 weeks after conception, brain waves can"t be detected. This in conclusion means fetuses aren"t living, this doesn"t mean that they were once living, because an entity could have no brain waves without having once lived, therefore this only entails that the entity isn"t currently living. Therefore abortion wouldn"t be killing, since killing requires something to have a life. There are clearly situations which a family does not have enough money to provide for another human. Therefore I don"t find it necessary to cite something demonstrating this. So going based off the idea that there are situations in which a soon to be baby can"t be provided for after being born, this would not only end in the suffering of the baby, but the situation would further impoverish the family. As opposed to the fetus not feeling pain, and the family having a better chance at surviving their financial problems. A highly brought up argument is when a woman gets raped, and consequently becomes pregnant. The rape alone puts a huge burden on the victim"s life and also becoming pregnant due to it further intensifies it. My opponent may propose that they could just give it up for adoption or foster care, but there are situations where those services aren"t available. Not only this, but these options don"t just get rid of the damage done since there is work being put into these services, as well as the fact that the parent is knowledgeable of the baby living without it, which would cause some moms so much distress that they would rather raise it because they see it as necessary. This is in the end leads to avoidable complications. Rebuttal The first point in my opponent"s case is (The unborn are distinct human beings.), but there is a problem with both the words unborn and human beings. The unborn may have a metaphysical possibility, but they are both human and unborn, but we can"t kill them. Therefore my opponent"s first premise includes dead unborn humans, but since my opponent isn"t arguing that we shouldn"t kill dead unborn people, my opponent needs to add in that they need to be alive. How we determine whether someone is alive is by my first paragraph. "In the United States, we have rights to "Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness." Those rights shouldn't be taken away." Since I don"t find the United States to be infallible, my opponent would either have to prove it is, or that the right shouldn"t be taken away but con does not. Because if con doesn"t then there"s no reason to follow something just because the U.S. says. Even if this is a question of legality, there"s nothing stopping the U.S. adopting a new guideline. The point would have worked if the resolution was about whether it should be legal in accordance with the law.