Abortion is Generally Immoral.

As he has not responded to my argument, I extend my premises and conclusion into the next round. I will now attempt to briefly respond to each of his points. Notice how he has not supported any of his arguments with sources. This is because most (if not all) of them are faulty. I will show how.1. It is true that most abortions take place in the first trimester, but this is irrelevant. First, if your argument is that the embryo is not viable, this is arbitrary. Viability changes with technology. Premature babies used to be in mortal danger if born before 26 weeks. Now a baby born at 24 weeks has a fighting chance, as does one born as early as 22 weeks. [1] [2] So viability is arbitrary. Also, a non-viable embryo may not be an independent entity, it is still a separate entity in that it is different from the mother. It has different DNA from the mother. Also, if it were the same entity then one could correctly state that every pregnant woman has four legs, four arms, two heads, four eyes, and half the time male reproductive organs.2. If Con wishes to argue that personhood is what gives a human value, he bears the burden of proof since I have already made my case that humans are inherently valuable, regardless of how young. Implantation is not when their life begins, fertilization is. So yes, any embryo destroyed or "thrown out" while in the process of IVF is killing human lives. Abortion is not technically murder, as murder is the unlawful killing of a human. Abortion is lawful, so not technically murder. But embryos destroyed via IVF, like the preborn aborted, is unjustified homicide.3. Con's argument here is a non-sequitur (i. e. his conclusion is not supported by the premises). He maintains that adoption is not an alternative to abortion because it is a choice she can make, but not a lot of women choose the option. It still remains an alternative to abortion.4. Again, it is true that most abortions happen in the first trimester. However, first trimester abortion is only marginally safer than carrying a child to term. A woman has less than a 1% chance of dying due to pregnancy-related causes (13 in 100,000). [3] (Con didn't list any sources to back up his claims). Also, there have been good studies that show there may be a link between a woman having an abortion and being more susceptible to breast cancer (my notes are currently packed away -- I'll source this in my next round). However, even if abortion was a completely safe procedure, that doesn't make it acceptable. People are allowed to do things that hurt them and possibly kill them (like smoking and sky diving). Abortion is not wrong because it hurts women, abortion is wrong because it takes an innocent human life. Con has not yet refuted this.5. Rape is a devastating act of violence against women, a horrible crime, to be sure. I am actually in favor of harsher punishment to rapists, and I believe women should be encouraged to speak out so that more rapists will be punished. However, why should the child be forced to pay with his life for the crimes of his father? Also, compounding one act of violence (rape) with another (abortion) does not solve anything. This is from a textbook on abortion: "Victims of sexual abuse and rape deserve special care. However, the abortion counselor should recognize that the emotional trauma experienced by the rape or incest victim cannot be treated adequately, if at all, in the abortion clinic setting. All rape and incest victims, as well as victims of physical abuse, should be referred for appropriate psychological counseling and support. " [4]6. Actually, abortion is used as a form of contraception. From Guttmacher Institute's own website, most women who have abortions do so for some kind of social reason (e. g. she can't afford a child, doesn't feel she's ready, etc. ). [5] However, this is still irrelevant to the case of abortion because abortion is not wrong because of the motives behind a woman's decision, it's wrong because it takes an innocent human life as Con has still not refuted.7. Con is making a slippery slope fallacy here. If abortion is made illegal, it will be made illegal because it kills an innocent child, not because it is trying to control women. Women (or men) will not be forced to use contraceptives or be sterilized. Even now, we don't have complete control over our bodies. We can't urinate in public. And women don't have complete control over their bodies during pregnancy. If they have morning sickness, they cannot have thalidomide prescribed to them, which is a drug that eases morning sickness but results in deformations of the child (they usually wind up missing a limb). The "right" to abortion is not critical to civil rights any more than the "right" to murder is critical to civil rights. In fact, the "right" for a woman to have an abortion takes away a preborn child's most fundamental right, the right to life.8. This is a largely irrelevant argument and another non sequitur. Peaceful protests are done against wars, as well as against abortions. This is because of the First Amendment, the right to free speech and the right to assemble. Also, taxpayer dollars can not be used for abortions.9. Con has not sourced this so I have no way of knowing if this is true. But it seems to be that the tides are turning and more young people are becoming pro-life. It's pro-abortion rhetoric that claims a woman's life is over once she becomes pregnant. But again, abortion is wrong because it takes an innocent human's life. If a woman needs to rely on government assistance to raise her child, then let her. It can be very tough to raise a child. But the solution is not killing the child, the solution is our government helping its citizens that are in need of financial assistance to raise their children.10. If stress is greater due to an abortion, maybe the abortion is at fault at not the pregnancy. Con's argument here seems to be arguing against abortion and not for it. Abortion causes stress so she should go through with a stressful operation? However, it's still a very weak argument because again, there are all kinds of stressful situations which are not immoral. Abortion is immoral because it takes an innocent human life. I have argued that abortion is generally immoral because it takes an innocent human life, and Con has not refuted this. Perhaps he was waiting until after making his opening argument to address mine but at any rate, I extend all of my arguments into the next round. I have also shown that Con's ten points are either irrelevant, using bad statistics, and just flat-out don't refute my contention. I look forward to Con's reply. [1] . http://miscarriage.about.com...[2] . http://www.nysun.com...[3] . http://www.msnbc.msn.com...[4] Hern, Dr. Warren, Abortion Practice, p. 84. [5] . http://www.guttmacher.org...