args

Abortion should be illegal

Thank you Pro for giving me an intelligent rebuttal in a very well-mannered approach, building his case and talking enthusiastically about his family. However, his intellect has skewed to generate a plethora of false assumptions regarding my claims. Along with proving why, I will also introduce sound documents and testimonies to effectively fortify my rebuttals and refutations. With all being said, let us advance to the debate. V. Question of Life "Con begins this argument by saying that people argue about this subject"He then submits that we can't trust the scientific facts in play. This is illogical because we have to base debate of what we currently know otherwise debate is worthless." I never stated that I don't have any trust on "scientific facts in play". I simply acknowledged the ever-changing nature of science, as it progresses and advances itself through time. Keeping in mind this truth, I firmly believe that the question of an embryo's life is still at the tip of the balance, presently wavered by polarized consensus, and that is the major reason I put it as my last contention, not saying that it is the least, but saying that it is very unstable as of the present moment. However, as Con, I must accept the present qualifications of life as I base my refutations on what the world currently provides and try to negate it. The above-statement is a bare fabrication, a pure straw-man made by the affirmative side to transcend himself into a height in the debate. Now that I have negated his hollow assertion, I move that Pro should ask me questions in the comments section if he cannot simply understand what I am trying to say. V.1. Sensitivity Both sides agree on the usage of the seven qualifications, but only differ when a fetus is at question. Again, when one of these criteria are inapplicable, it would automatically constitute to invalidity. I will add another criteria that doesn't fit the validity of a fetus, in majority of abortions, for life, sensitivity. A human is capable of adapting to his environment intrinsically because of his stimuli. Humans react to pain, happiness and sorrow because of stimuli. Does a fetus have stimuli? Of course. But, the true question is: When do they possess it? "The most frequently cited source comes from "Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence," published in the August 2005 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The JAMA authors concede that pain receptors are present throughout the unborn child"s entire body by no later than 16 weeks after fertilization and nerves link these receptors to the brain"s thalamus and sub-cortical plate by no later than 20 weeks post fertilization."[1] "Another frequently cited source comes from a 2010 piece produced by a "working group" of the (British) Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists titled "Fetal Awareness: Review of Research and Recommendations for Practice". These authors, like those of the JAMA article, argued that in order to experience pain a functioning cerebral cortex is needed, which does not occur until well after 20 weeks."[1] It is proven that in 16-20 weeks, the brain of the fetus is still acquiring the ability to feel pain, therefore, is still learning how to adapt to the environment. Until then, the fetus is not a human being, since the ability to adapt is not yet acquired. But, how is abortion acceptable, then? To make things more clear, consider this statistics report. " The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 66 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 92 percent are performed within the first 13 weeks. Only 1.2 percent occur at or after 21 weeks (CDC, 2013). Since the nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the proportion of abortions performed after the first trimester has decreased because of increased access to and knowledge about safe, legal abortion (Gold, 2003)."[2] A compelling number of abortions happen prior to the formation of a fully functioning cerebral cortex. People have already done this innumerable times, year by year, effectively performing safe abortions. Pro has cited his sources from the time abortion was new. Pro used outdated sources and omits the huge difference from 1972 to 2017. May it be 1972 (as Pro wrote) or 1973, the point is clear; safe abortions proliferated through time, are accepted, and violates no human right, since the fetus is not human in majority of the abortions made. V.2. Reproduction Pro asserts that human embryos have the ability to reproduce, so it qualifies as a human being. This simply shows how his false assumptions and lack of intellect on the subject will prove disadvantageous . An embryo is not a human being. The embryonic stage accounts to no development whatsoever of reproductive organs, as for a cerebral cortex.[3] This makes two of the criteria invalid, thus making the embryo not suited for life. I. Bodily Autonomy Pro has yet made another assumption herein, along with a greatly flawed analogy. Pro states that I believe women can terminate their fetus because naturally, the fetus interferes with the mother's right to bodily autonomy. It is impossible for a fetus to interfere, in every extent. The only thing that interferes the self-principle is the restrictions of the government to practice it. Also, Pro's analogy is fallible in many angles. The first analogy talks about how inviting visitors then killing them because the owner of the house thinks they trespassed is analogous to abortion. If you invited them, would it be called trespassing? How magical. Being the owner means that everyone who is inside your house should abide your rules. Since, we are talking about an unborn being, the owner can rightfully lead it to its exit. Since visitors are humans, and plural, an abortion to baby twins, triplets, quatruplets are awfully wrong. Remember, the 38th week post fertilization is full-term [3] and they are already humans as opposed to embryos. The rape analogy was equally flawed. The fetus doesn't interfere the right, but the rapist surely does. He brought an unborn being to your home forcefully, it is your right to decide if it stays or not. II. Violation of Human Rights As I mentioned, innumerable values hold equally indistinguishable values. Could you proudly say that the right to life supersedes the right to happiness? The right to free speech over the right to choose? Simply not. They are equal and universal. Violation of these important rights is as bad as infringing the other important ones. III. Desperate Mothers A. Life for life - I have already negated the outdated source presented here. Again, from 1972 to 2017, countless advancements were made, especially in making smart and safe abortions. Pro then states " If even 1% of pregnant women are deterred from having an abortion... that saves 10,000 lives which is far more than would ever be lost in black market abortions." That's also 10, 000 violated women for your conservative estimate. B. Protection of offender over victim - Pro here states that "We should not seek to save the lives of women who take part in abortion (murder) at the cost of the life of the innocent unborn baby." Pro proudly favors the non-existent right of the unborn over the essential right of the mother which automatically infringes the right of others wrongfully. IV. Jobless Teenagers Although it is true that adoption can be an option, that equally holds true for abortion. Also, even at 11%, lives and families and careers and their personal health would be at stake, especially when the mother is financially challenged. Let the mother cater her needs financially and career wise. Conclusion: I have effectively negated Pro's numerous faulty claims and refuted with evidences as promised. The embryo is not alive. The rights and needs of women should be greatly upheld in this matter greatly. I affirm the resolution.