args

Resolved: Abortion should be Illegal (Except in life threatening cases)

I thank my opponent for this intriguing debate. I will refute their arguments in this final round, sum up my own, and leave it at that. Are you serious? The right to life triumphs all. Without life, you don't live. Life is a prerequisite to everything. Compare the rights of life and choice to a cell phone and texting. The right to have a phone is more important, as without a phone you can't text; likewise without life you have no choice. Many choices are limited by government today, mostly choices that harm others such as killing. Being able to kill others is not a choice you should be able to have. My opponent has not provided any real argument as to how the right to life triumphs all. Remember, in this debate, my opponent was to show how the current laws should be changed, and that abortion should be made illegal again. My opponent has failed to show a fetus', a non sentient creature, right to life holds more value than a woman's right to control her own body. Does my opponent really believe that a pregnant woman should have no control over her body, and that she should be forced to carry out a pregnancy? Also, compoaring the rights to life and "choice to a cell phone and texting" is not relevant to this argument at all. The right to control ones body is a basic human right, whereas having a phone isn't even close to being as important. My opponent says, "the right to have a phone is more important than the right to text, because without a phone you can't text, likewise, without life you have no choice." This argument here is not relevat to the debate, there is no logical relation between having a phone, and abortion. But I'd like to remind my opponent, than having a phone does not violate any basic human rights, whereas forcing a woman to carry out childbirth does. Why depriving someone of FLO is a crime? It's not a crime, currently, as abortion is legal. But I argue that it should be because what makes life valuable is the experiences, and depriving someone of them is immoral because that is the purpose of life. I'm not sure what my opponent is trying to say here. Simply because something is "immoral" in the eyes of one person, does not mean it can dictate the law. A member of the primate genus Homo,especially a member of the species Homo Sapiens, distinguished from other apes by a large brain and the capacity for speech. So yes, there is scientific proof for a fetus's humanity: being part of Homo Sapiens defines a human. The fetus has human DNA, not a gorilla's. My opponent doesn't understand, a fetus is an undeveloped lifeform that has the potential to become a sentient creature. My opponent tries to take this whole debate through a detour of this Homo Sapiens argument, when in reality, it has nothing to do with the debate at all. An undeveloped, unsentient, human being does not have the same rights as a sentient, developed human being that is capable of living independent of any other creature. Also, the "proof" that my opponent gives doesn't make sense. My opponent states that a fetus is a human because it's a "Member of the Homo Sapiens species." But then they go on to say that the Homo Sapiens species is distinguished from other apes by "a large brain and the capacity for speech." Even though a fetus is only a undeveloped human being, it does not have a large brain, nor the capacity for speech. So my opponents entire homo sapiens argument is void. Dependency does not determine personhood, dependent people on life support are still human. The difference between a fetus being completely dependent on it's mother is not the same as a person on life support, because the life support machines are not living creatures, and the machines have no rights of their own, such as the right to control ones body. A woman still has the right to control her body, a fetus does not overrule this right. A person on life support has rights of their own, but the machine they are dependent on does not, therefore the machine cannot choose to stop helping the person on life support. Yes, some abortions would still happen. But since I proved scientifically and biologically that a fetus is a human, banning abortion reduces the amount of abortions. Legalizing abortion only made the total number of abortions higher. Saving more lives is more important, and abortion has killed 50 million innocents. This is very much true and comparable to the Holocaust in that innocents were killed in cold blood. My opponent has not proved that a fetus is a human, nor that it's "right to life" overrules a woman's right to her body. My opponent's rebuttal avoids the original point I made. Illegal abortions are very unsafe for the mother, and more often then not, end in harm coming to the mother. My opponent tries to appeal to emotion here, by saying that abortion kills, but it does not. It simply ends the possibility for future life, which is very different. My original point with the illegal abortions argument was that there would be more of them if abortion was made illegal, and this would result in more mothers dying, after being "treated" by an unqualified person. I mentioned them, but I noted they were outweighed by the right to life. THe government has an obligation to save lives. My opponent has not, in this entire debate, proved that a fetus' right to life actually outweighs the right to privacy, which is a constitutional right, or a woman's right to control over her body. My opponent simply states this as their opinion, with no evidence to back them up. My opponent also never proved that the government's obligation is to save lives. A government's obligation is to govern the nation, abiding by basic human rights, which would be violated if women were forced to carry through with pregnancies, as if they had no control over their bodies. Remember Con's concession that the fetus is part of Homo Sapiens, This is false, I stated outright that a fetus is an undeveloped homo sapiens, therefore it does not have the same rights as one. Con never refutes FLO either My opponent never showed how FLO is enough to legally prove that abortion should be illegal. My opponent entire argument here was an appeal to emotion, as it is not written in any legal document that depriving someone of FLO is an actual crime. Conclusion In conclusion, a fetus' right to life does not overweigh a woman's right to control her body. The fetus is completely dependant on the mother, and the mother is not simply a container for the fetus, she has rights of her own. The right to privacy, and a woman's right to control over her body cannot be violated simply for the prospect of future life. Vote Con. I thank my opponent for this debate.