Abortion Ought To Be Illegal

Con Has Fumbled On The Most Important Issue:In the paragraphs titled, “Viability is Not Uniqueness“, “How Are We Different From A Fetus?”, and it’s response, “We Aren’t”, I have given my case clearly and to the best of my ability. In contrast, Con has ignored the real question: is a fetus a living, growing, individual human? Instead he has focused on the comparatively rare incident of involuntary conception (I.e. rape).In response to Viability is Not Uniqueness, Con (instead of contending with my claim on his equivocation) lectures us on how long a three-week old baby and a fetus can survive without a mother. As if it was a horse race. I think we can safely conclude that Con did not adequately respond to any of these paragraphs. In fact, he didn’t even take a stab at “How Are We Different From A Fetus” and its accompanying response, “We Aren’t”.Since Con has refrained from any counter-argument on the individuality and humanness of a fetus, I will conclude, since this is the last round, that Con has conceded this most important of issues. As a result of his silence on the issue, there is whole new surge of justification to my secondary and third point and nullification of all attempts at justification through the event of rape, financial loss, and the repeatedly used argument through the 13th and 14th amendments. Another Explanation On My Secondary Point: My secondary point was meant to be acknowledged as this: If a fetus is found to be a living, developing individual, then United States law ought to reform its definition of citizenship (specifically I wanted the 14th amendment to be reformed). I am not actually declaring that the 14th Amendment currently protects an unborn child from murder -- although it ought to. Con, however, has repeatedly misinterpreted the true meaning of my secondary point. I hope now,Con finally understands it as a theoretical point for the reformation of the U.S. definition of citizenship (specifically in 14th amendments, etc.) with the acceptance of the unborn child as a human individual.Out Of The Frying Pan And Into The Fire For Con: Initially, Con accused me of believing “…a women does not have the right to her own body.” I called him out for this as an out of context misrepresentation of my views. As justification for this accusation, Con said this: “modern medicine has advanced to the point where a mother's or child's life is often not at risk which would basically abolish abortion if your resolution passed politically." He’s saying that if my point of view was taken, abortion would be abolished and, therefore, a woman does not have the right to her own body. This belief necessarily reduces a woman’s right to her body as merely having the right to abort a child. A woman’s right in relation to her body is more than abortion.I support both women’s and men'sright to their own bodies in all circumstances - as long as it does not infringe or endanger other’s. Con’s sweeping generalization and accusing me of being completely against the rights of a woman in relation to her body is thoroughly unfounded and has unjustly characterized me as opposed to women.Consensus Is Not The Same As Truth: “By making abortion illegal without the consensus of when life begins would be forcing a theocratically tinged theory onto everyone.”Consensus simply does not bring about truth (for example, in the middle ages there was a consensus that the earth was flat). It is for this reason, that facts and sound reasoning are the only things that bring the truth to light. The fact that there are different opinions on an issue does not render the facts useless. In this sense, your first contention remains a Nirvana fallacy (1).My Argument Is Not Of The Minority: “Instead I am stating that consensus be the majority instead of a theocratic minority.”Here, Con has made a factual error. In almost every poll, the country is divided almost evenly on abortion (2). I do not represent a minority as Con would like to suggest and I am definitely not theocratic. I am not, either, trying to suggest a consensus trump card. Truth is not found in numbers, but in facts.The Child Is Not An Accomplice:Abortion is not justified in the case of rape for two reasons:1. An abortion does not render the pains and trauma of the rape benign. The abortion is not magical, it fixes nothing. All it does is create another victim - the child, and that’s it. Let’s focus on the real issue (i.e. carrying out justice on the perpetrator). Any counter-arguments are made null by point two.2. The unborn child is not an accomplice in the crimes of the father and is therefore innocent. There is no justice found in the abortion, there is only death. The 13th amendments and 14th amendments (and others like them) are void here because you cannot justify taking the innocent life of the unborn child. It’s oxymoronic. The Amendments in the Constitution are meant to protect the self-evident right that all men are created equal. And that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Any amendment or document that infringes on these unalienable rights are null and void.Poverty Is Not Justification:“Also in most cases of unwanted teen pregnancies, economic hardships occur as a result of the pregnancy as the teen drops out of high school severely hampering her career opportunities.”Although there is no outright conclusion, we can all see that Con is attempting to justify abortion because the teen mother would lose financial opportunities. If the fetus is a living, human individual, then the teen mother is not justified to abort it - even if she might lose some financial opportunities. This was the original intention of the paragraphs titled “Con Prefers ‘Financial Success’ Over The Sacred Right To Life” and “Con Takes ‘Financial Success’ Over Life Again”.Con Remains Ambiguous Throughout The Debate: Throughout the debate I have constantly tried to give conclusions wherever necessary. Con however has refrained from this - even he admits it when speaking of his first contention:“In addition because pro could not refute the contention (due to lack of information on my part)…”Con has continuously held back on giving a conclusion on integral contentions in his argument. Here are some examples:1. “Rape is a traumatic experience on a woman, and forcing the woman to care for the rapist's child would add unneeded mental stress on the woman after experiencing a traumatic incident. (3)”No conclusion. The fact that rape is tragic and that mental stress hurts does not prove that the unborn child has forfeited his right to live. The unborn child is not an accomplice with the father and remains innocent until proven guilty. He has not given us a clear reason why abortion ought to be legal.2. “Then there's also unwanted teen pregnancies…”As the paragraph goes on, Con simply asserts the supposed effect of a teen pregnancy. There are unwanted teen pregnancies, but Con has yet to show why this justifies the termination of an unborn child.3. “…The Frontal lobe (the part of the brain that determines right from wrong) is not fully developed in adolescents (both male and female) until they are in their early 20's.”Again, Con refuses to explain why the fact that the Frontal lobe is not fully developed necessarily implies that a teen does not have the capacity to take care of a child. Why? Because his argument is moot to begin with. Even when the Frontal lobe is fully developed we still have bad parents. Therefore, his premise (a teen’s Frontal lobe is undeveloped) does not necessarily lead to the unspoken conclusion (“Therefore teens cannot take care of a child“).Sources:(1). Under the section titled: Perfect solution fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) “In a Gallup Poll, taken in May 3-6, 2012. With more than a thousand adults polled nation wide” : http://www.pollingreport.com...