Abortion

While I could attempt to obfuscate the argument by introducing multiple different arguments, I will attempt to limit myself to the arguments that he has set forth. So without further ado I will present my counter arguments. RebuttalDefinition of abortion. My opponent defines it as: "artificially ending a pregnancy, specifically excluding C-section". While I think that while we are going to agree with what is meant, this could be misused in conditions where the woman is receiving treatment for something else which has the unintended side effect resulting in the death of the child. Additionally, it could include drugs that induce delivery of the child when it is safe to the child to do so. And I will also include drugs or devices that would prevent an embryo from implanting. With these general exceptions I think we can agree upon the definition. Next my opponent essentially concedes personhood to the unborn child (more on that later). Abortion argument #1:"A two year old child is dying, they require a kidney transplant, the only person who can provide the kidney is the babies mother, the babies mother doesn't want to give up her kidney. If that woman can choose to not donate a kidney then why can't a pregnant woman choose to no longer provide her body for the fetus to grow inside of? "and"Now for your position to be logically consistent you need to force the mother of the two year old to give her kidney to her child. Obviously it would be a moral action for the mother to give her child her kidney but that is not the question, the question is whether or not she should be forced to give away her kidney. "While my opponent claimed he wasn't arguing morality he ends up arguing morality! (I jest). :-)This is resolved by a little bit of philosophy and reasoning. The purpose of the mother's kidney is to filter and reprocess blood [1] in the mother's body. That we can repurpose it to do the same in the child's body is truly a marvel of modern medicine. However, as this is an extra-natural (i. e. outside of nature) act there is no onus on the parents to do so. As such it is up to the parent to decide the best course of action. She may decide that this is her only child and that she'll make the sacrifice, or she may decide that that she has another 7 children at home and that the toll will be too great on her resulting in much suffering for her and her other children. Now we can look at the child within the womb. The purpose of the womb is there explicitly to give life to the mother's young children. In fact, the woman can live safely without the womb, the unborn child cannot. Additionally, the mother's body naturally desires the child to be there since every month it intentionally prepares itself to provide nourishment to the child. As procreation is the natural purpose of every living being, and this is the only means by which our species can naturally reproduce, it is intuitive that the child has a natural right to use the mother's womb for the purpose that it exists while being in conformity with the natural desire of the woman's body. Additionally, we recognize that parents have a natural duty to provide for the basic needs of their children. While this is generally an obvious issue of natural or common law, nations are generally enshrining this into law. Let's take Canadian Law as an example:Failure to Provide the Necessities of Life: Everyone is under a legal duty as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years. [2]The parents are the legal guardians of the child until the age of majority and as such have the rights to make legal decisions on behalf of the child, but also have the corresponding duty to provide for the needs of the child. However, they do not own the child. Finally we agreed that the child has a right to life. If (s)he is alive (s)he has a body. An abortion "artificially ends a pregnancy" in either a direct or indirect attack by the mother on the child thus denying him/her of his/her right to life. Whereas choosing not to give the child her kidney merely lets nature take its course. Abortion Argument #2:And now for very early term abortion, the argument that a early term (0-10 week) fetus is human has to rest on the genetic makeup of the fetus which begs the question: Should a placenta have rights? It has no nervous system but neither does an early term fetus. An early term fetus should be considered no more human than a placenta and if you want to argue otherwise you will have to find a trait an early term fetus possesses which a placenta lacks. First let's analyze your life. Your profile says that you're 14 (and probably quite mature for your age to be making these kind of arguments). If we go back second by second we'll find that you are the same organism now as a teenager as you were as a youth, as a toddler, as a baby, as a fetus, as an embryo, as a zygote, however there was no "you" before that. The egg and the sperm did not have to result in you, any other sperm could have combined with that egg and you'd not have been you. If that sperm combined with a different egg, once again you'd not be you. A new homo sapiens organism begins at fertilization, it is a scientific fact. Additionally, you will note that in that phase of development you were never a placenta. In fact, there is no natural process that results in a placenta developing into a human being. At no time has a placenta ever spontaneously become any of the other stages of life that I described. A placenta does not become a teenager, baby, fetus, embryo or zygote. It is a tissue of a human organism, and not an organism itself. Thus other human tissues are objectively different than an actual human being. A placenta is just a placenta, whereas an embryo is a human being at the youngest stages of life. In reality this is just another form of discrimination based on appearance. It doesn't look like us, in fact it looks more like a pimple than a person. And yet, it is a member of the human species, just like you and me. Finally you noted in your opening arguments you agreed that a fetus has a right to life. Life is the most fundamental human right that anyone has because if you do not have the right to life you cannot actually have any other right. If it is a fundamental human right that means that neither the government nor any other person the the authority to give it or take it from you - otherwise it would not be a right, but would instead be a privilege granted to you. Additionally, if it is fundamental right then you must always possess it. If you are the same organism from fertilization to natural death, how could you have varying fundamental human rights? That is logically inconsistent. Counter ArgumentThere is no single criteria other than simply being a member of humanity that you can apply to a zygote that doesn't also apply to a newborn baby in terms of granting rights. Brain - well other animals also have brains and we kill and eat many of them. Intelligence - well one can objectively show that the adult cow you ate for dinner was more intelligent than a newborn. Ability to feel pain - Other animals also feel pain. Ability to communicate - A baby can only cry. Dogs can bark, whine, growl, pant and wag their tail, paw at you, bring you their leash, etc. .. Is sapient - well neither of them are yet sapient. Logically, you have to permit infanticide if you are going to determine humanity on any single attribute other than merely being a member of the species. If you want to argue that there are 2 attributes that have to be met then you are applying a truly subjective criteria and have to justify why 2 criteria are needed. You are implicitly accepting that there is something special about being a member of the species rather than the secondary attribute. The secondary criteria is a means of discrimination of the powerful over the powerless. Humanity has a history of this:You are only a person if you are human and male, human and white, human and non-Jewish, human and a citizen of a particular nation, etc. .. I look forward to my opponent's reply. [1] . http://www.ahwatukee.com...[2] . http://en.wikibooks.org...