Abortion

Thanks for opening this important debate. I hope to have a respectful discussion. No debate format was specified, so I will issue a brief opening argument with some initial rebuttals. == Argument == No one would deny that abortion kills a living thing. The key question is whether that living thing is human. Let's examine the facts: Pro says an abortion is merely "removing a clump of cells." Technically, that is correct. But, at the most basic levels, we are all just a clump of cells. We can equally say that killing an adult is merely stopping a large group of cells from functioning. The fact that a fetus is a clump of cells does not change the fact that it's potentially a human being. At the first second of conception, the zygote has unique and completely human DNA. Humans have 46 chromosomes with DNA specific to the Homo Sapiens species. All 46 chromosomes, as well as the human specific DNA that comes with them, are present the moment fertilization occurs. According to the book Human Embryology & Teratology, "fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. [1]". Even if an abortion happens just after pregnancy can first be confirmed (4-5 weeks), the embryo has already begun developing its own unique brain, spinal cord, fingerprints, and heart. By week 6, the arms, legs, eyes, and bones develop. The heart also begins beating [2]. The brain and spine of a fetus do not belong to some separate sub-human species. They are genetically and fully Homo Sapien. There is not a single scientific argument to justify why a fetus is not a member of the human species. Logically, in order to call an embryo "non-human," then there must be some point at which it can be called human. My opponent seems to suggest this point is after 6 months. Why 6 months? Is a baby really not human before this point? How about 3 hours before? 3 days? 3 weeks? I'm interested to hear why my opponent draws the line of human life at 6 months. Finally, American law already recognizes an unborn "clump of cells" as a human with individual rights at every point in pregnancy. In 2004, the federal government passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it illegal to harm (either intentionally or unintentionally) an unborn child. The law defines "unborn child" as follows: "the term 'unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term 'child in utero' or 'child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." [3] Incredibly, this means that if a pregnant woman on her way to the abortion clinic gets hit by a truck, survives, but loses the baby, then the truck driver can be charged with manslaughter. However, if she safely arrives at the clinic then it's perfectly legal to kill the baby. This contradiction borders on the insane. It essentially says a fetus has human rights in every instance except when the mother chooses to take them away. Assuming my opponent agrees that intentionally ending human life is wrong in most cases, then it must follow that abortion should be wrong in most cases as well. In order to refute this, Pro must show why an unborn child is not human. == Rebuttal == Pro makes four central arguments: 1. "Making abortions illegal won't necessarily cause them to stop." 2. A fetus is a parasite and has no right to use the mother's organs without permission. 3. Abortion is less dangerous than pregnancy, and less women will die if abortions are safe and legal. 4. Abortion is less expensive than adoption, so abortion is a better option. Let's look at the first argument. The obvious question to this is: does making ANY behavior illegal stop people from doing it? Murder, theft, rape, and fraud are all illegal, yet these activities still occur all the time. So according to Pro's logic, we should also legalize and regulate murder, theft, rape, and fraud, right? Unfortunately, people's unwillingness to refrain from certain behaviors doesn't justify making them legal. Pro's second argument would make sense if an unborn child was an unwelcome parasite.... but it isn't. Let me first address the "unwelcome" part. In all cases except rape, the cause of an unborn child is consensual sex. By consenting to sex, a person by definition welcomes the risks that come with that choice. So, just like a smoker willingly assumes the increased risk of cancer, the pregnant woman cannot reasonably be upset by the increased chance of pregnancy that consensual sex brings. Next, let's consider the idea of "parasite." Pro suggests a parasite is something that uses another person's organs or body. If this is a correct definition, then the child is still a parasite AFTER it is born as well. An infant still requires a parent's brain, body, muscles, and time - often against the wishes of many exhausted parents. Is a two year old therefore being parasitic by demanding her parents' time and energy? Does she deserve to die if that demand becomes too much for her parents to bear? What about handicapped people who require a great deal of assistance from others - are they parasites? Hardly.... Pro's third argument seems reasonable enough - if faced with something that makes you 14 times more likely to die, we all would want the lesser of two evils, right? Unfortunately, Pro overlooks one crucial statistic here: the number of children abortion kills each year. Since 1979, the number of annual legal abortions in the U.S. alone has been around 1 million [4]. That means, somewhere in the ball park of 36,000,000 children have been killed since Roe v. Wade (and that's a very low estimate). Assuming a gender birth ratio of around 50/50, that means 18,000,000 unborn female children have been killed. Abortion doesn't save women - it kills them by the millions! So it seems it's not a choice between two evils, but three. I'm not even sure why Pro includes childbirth mortality rates, because it's an irrelevant issue - are they suggesting that everyone should get abortions because it's too risky to have children? That certainly wouldn't bode well for the survival of the human species.... Finally, Pro says abortion is less expensive than adoption, so it just makes more fiscal sense. Really? If that's the case then let's kill everyone as soon as they retire - the average person over 60 costs the government $17,161 per year in Social Security benefits [5]. That certainly costs a lot more than abortion OR adoption, so according to my opponent's logic we should start with the elderly. That's all I have for now. Sincerely looking forward to the next round. [1] O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 8-29 [2] http://www.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://www.gpo.gov... [4] http://www.cdc.gov... [5] http://www.bankrate.com...