Abortion

Contention 1Pro's definitions are largely irrelevant. I have made a scientific case for why the unborn are human beings, which Pro has not refuted. I have also given quotes by embryologists, the experts in the field, and Pro could not produce one embryologist that dissented. Of course, I expected as much because embryologists consistently agree that a new human being exists at fertilization. Also, it should be noted that according to the second definition of child that Pro provided himself, the definition is "an unborn infant; a fetus. " So even according to the dictionary, a fetus is a child and by extension, also fits the definition of "human being" that Pro, himself, provided. I have proven in spades that the unborn is a separate human entity from fertilization. The fetus is not part of its mother until viability. If this were the case, the pregnant woman would have two heads, four legs, four arms, two noses, and roughly half the time, a penis and two testicles. Also, the unborn embryo/pre-viability fetus has different fingerprints than the mother and often a different bloodtype. Also, you can conceive a white embryo through IVF and implant him into a black woman, and the child will still be born white. I have committed no fallacies, and Pro, unfortunately, did not point out which fallacy he believed I was committing. Pro admits that the person who made the baby in the baby-making machine is now responsible for the child. By extension, if a man and woman engage in an act they know has a chance of producing a child, they now bear responsibility for that child. I contend that it's Pro who actually doesn't understand the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment is about citizenship, not the right to life. Illegal immigrants still have a right to life, despite not being U. S. citizens. The unborn also have the right to life, despite not yet being citizens (and as I pointed out previously, prior to Roe v. Wade the unborn were considered persons legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pro asserts that rationality and personality are needed for human beings to be considered human beings, but they are baseless. He offers no reasons to support his claims so we can reject them. Conversely, I have offered plenty of evidence that the unborn are human beings from fertilization. I have also shown why the woman does not simply have the right to "revoke" the presence of the fetus from inside her body. She bears responsibility for bringing a naturally needy child into existence (the man does, too, of course). If you bring a naturally needy child into existence then you bear responsibility for caring for that child. Contention 2Pro does not give strong justification for why the woman's right to reproduce trumps the fetus' right to life. I have already shown that the fetus is a full-fledged human. One's right to reproduce does not trump one's right to life, which is the most fundamental of all rights. Additionally, once fertilization happens she has already reproduced. Contention 3I have committed no fallacy here (and Pro has not mentioned which fallacy he believes I am making). Pro also gives no sources to back up his claims here, so they can be rejected. I believe that women are generally law-abiding citizens, so I'm not convinced they would all flock to abortionists to have illegal abortions. But even if they did, that doesn't mean that abortions should stay legal. After all, murder and rape happen even though they are illegal. That doesn't mean we should legalize it. Cross-ExaminationPro has still offered no reason for why viability should give a right to life. The entity before viability is the same entity post-viability. Why is it that a being must be able to live independently that gives it a right to life? This would mean that a born person on life support would not have a right to life, even if they have a good chance of recovering. Also, as I have shown viability is an arbitrary line to draw. Viability decreases as technology improves. RebuttalThe reason Pro's reference to Joyce Arthur is an appeal to authority is because he gave no reasons to support his claims. He used Joyce Arthur as his argument, rather than supporting it. I gave actual scientific and philosophical reasoning to support the case that the unborn are full-fledged humans from fertilization. Plus, Joyce Arthur is not a scientist. Specifically, she's not an embryologist. I gave quotes by embryologists, who are the experts on human embryology to support my case. Pro also ignores my analogies, so I extend them. It's simply ridiculous not to answer them for his reasons. I might as well say Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist analogy is irrelevant because you're plugged into a violinist, you're not pregnant in the analogy. This is simply a ridiculous objection. That's the exact purpose of an analogy, to show a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Once again, I'd like to thank Pro for this intriguing debate. I believe I have made my case and defended it from scrutiny. Thank you for reading.