Abortion up to the Second Trimester Should Be Legalized.

Thanks to theSkeptic for the quick reply and continuance of this debate. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "UNTRUE. Saying abortion of the 2nd trimester should be legalized does not mean any attempts at further legalizing abortion should be stopped" Stating that something should be legalized up to an N-th degree lends itself to arguing that N + 1 should either be, or should remain, illegal. His example of Marriage and Civil Unions is far from analogous to this argument as it deals with two different concepts with varying implications. A more appropriate example would be if I argued that personal possession of heroine up to 3 grams should be legalized. Since any amount of this substance (and even paraphernalia) is currently considered illegal, it would be logical to conclude that I view anything over 3 grams should remain illegal. If this was not the case, why would I have set the limit at 3 grams? So I can come back later and argue that the limit should really be 10 kilos? Nonsense. If I had a valid argument for legalizing heroine up to 10 kilos, then any argument I made for specifically limiting possession to 3 grams was pointless and irrelevant. My opponent made the mistake of incorrectly formulating his resolution, and then he argues for it with an contention that begs the question: If a fetus is not a person and the rights of the mother take precedence, then why is he arguing to only legalize abortions UP TO the end of the second trimester? It just isn't logical. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Supreme Court Case Roe v. Wade (1973) "My "proposed standard" MATCHES this ruling, so your argument is erroneous." Wrong. While my opponent's proposed standard of the end of the second trimester happens to fall within the general time period expressed in the citation I provided, he may want to re-read the Court's decision. The Court's standard is viability. While at this time (<-- remember this), viability generally falls between 24 - 28 weeks. This means that it would be illegal to abort a fetus that is found to be viable in weeks 24 - 26. This would conflict with your proposition of legalizing all abortions up to the end of the 27th week. "The second trimester typically ends on the 28th week [1], which is the Court's definition of being "viable"." Wrong again. The Court's definition of viable was "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, ALBEIT with artificial aid". If, in the future, medical advances in incubation are made which allow a fetus to survive outside the womb after only 10 weeks, it would be illegal to abort a fetus at even 10 weeks. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Abortion isn't murder My opponent is correct here; Abortion is not murder. However, murder also isn't the ultimate determinant of whether an action against another human being (person) is moral or legal. Unless my opponent has any objections, I think we can both agree that the killing of an innocent human being should be considered immoral and therefore also illegal. Let's get to some definitions: Person: -noun 1: human , individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) - From the U.S. National Library of Medicine & National Institutes of Health - Fetus: -noun 2. a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth (http://www2.merriam-webster.com...) From the above we can certainly conclude that a fetus is indeed a person. My opponent's argument that "a fetus is not a person" is therefore nullified. The next part we must examine is whether or not the rights of the mother take precedence over the rights of the person (fetus) in the womb. Since the Supreme Court has already ruled it illegal to abort a fetus once viable, it must be seen that the fetus must retain at least the right to life. The only instance where the Court has offered to allow the mother's rights to supersede that of the viable fetus's is in instances where the mother's health (right to life) is in danger. If my opponent would like to argue that a mother's right to pursuit of happiness should trump a person's right to life, I'm more than willing to argue it. ----------------------------------------------------------------- I await my opponent's rationale for changing the existing laws regarding legality of abortion (viability of the fetus) for his proposed standard (the end of the second trimester).