Abortion should continue to be allowed
Debate Rounds (2)
Another reason that I believe in abortion is that I feel that there are many instances where if the child was born, it would have a horrible life. For instance, if a woman was raped at the age of thirteen, and she became impregnated, you cannot expect her to raise the child. That would ruin her life, and the child's life.
Also, 90% of abortions are performed before the child becomes a human, while it is still just a bundle of cells. It has no heartbeat and no brain. It is not any where near being alive. This isn't killing, its preventing.
Abortion does have its downsides, but it is still very necessary.
1. "Bodily anatomy"
Pro uses "bodily anatomy" (I assume they meant "autonomy") to argue that a woman should not be required to continue an unwanted pregnancy. As the argument goes, no one can force you to donate an organ, so no one can force you to endure a pregnancy. Unfortunately, this is a terrible analogy. An kidney is not a human life, but a fetus is. As such, Pro cannot compare the two as if they were similar. A kidney has no rights of its own, but an unborn child does. U.S. Federal Law confirms that the unborn are both alive and human, possessing rights equal to those of the mother. The 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), Section 1841, says that any person who injures a child in utero can be punished as if they injured the mother herself, even if the offender acted unintentionally or had no knowledge she was pregnant. Furthermore, UVVA says, "As used in this section, the term 'child in utero' or 'child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." [https://www.congress.gov......] Incredibly, this means that if a pregnant woman on her way to the abortion clinic gets hit by a texting driver, survives, but loses the baby, then that driver can be charged with manslaughter, just as if the mother herself was killed. So we can see that unborn child also has rights protected by law, which means it is not a simple question of a woman's right to her own body, but rather a woman's right to her baby's body.
The claim that "we have a right to our bodies and no one can take that way" is totally untrue. The government takes it away all the time. As an experiment, try walking through the mall naked, or prostituting yourself, or performing surgery on yourself in pubic, see what happens....
Lest Pro question whether the fetus is indeed a unique human life deserving of equal rights, let us consider the following: In addition to U.S. Law confirming the humanity of a fetus, science also overwhelmingly confirms that the unborn, even at the earliest stage, are human. At the first moments of conception, the zygote has unique and completely human DNA. Humans have 46 chromosomes with DNA specific to the Homo Sapiens species. All 46 chromosomes, as well as the human specific DNA that comes with them, are present the moment the fertilized egg begins dividing. According to the book Human Embryology & Teratology, "fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. ".
Even if an abortion happens just after pregnancy is usually detected, the embryo has already begun developing its own unique brain, spinal cord, fingerprints, and heart. By week 6, the arms, legs, eyes, and bones develop. The heart also begins beating . The brain and spine of a fetus are not the organs of some separate sub-human species. They are genetically and fully Homo Sapien. There is not a single scientific argument to justify why a fetus is not a member of the human species.
2. "there are many instance where if the child was born, it would have a horrible life..."
This is absurd. Abortion, according to this logic, is a type of mercy killing. Pro is implying that a child is better off dead than unwanted. The only way these justifications are acceptable is if a fetus is not human, which Pro has yet to prove. I suspect that if anyone had given Pro a choice between living a hard life or being killed, they would choose life, as would almost anyone. Furthermore, what gives the mother the right to decide that her child's life will be ruined? There is no way she can possibly know that. There are innumerable examples of children born into bad situations growing up to do great and inspiring things. This is a very, very weak argument.
3. "90% of abortions are performed before the child becomes a human..."
This is a totally baseless claim. Pro has not cited any source for this claim, so we have no reason to believe it. I challenge Pro to justify why a "bundle of cells" should not be considered human life, and to therefore define the point where human life begins if not conception. As I stated earlier, science overwhelmingly confirms that a genetically complete homo sapien exists after conception. Pro's claim that most abortions happen before the baby has a heartbeat or brain is completely untrue.
A fetus begins developing their brain and has a regular heartbeat by week 6, and yet according to the Guttmacher Institute, 66.5% of abortions happen after 7 weeks .
All of Pro's arguments so far are invalid.
 O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 8-29
Also, Con has rebutted my case on bringing the child into a horrible life unwanted is better than dying. The embryo may be already developing, but according to recent studies http://www.scientificamerican.com... babies do not have coherent thought while in the mothers stomach so they wouldn't know they are being "killed". Being born into a life where you are deserted or mistreated and you end up dying anyway for any reason is, in my opinion, way worse. At this point you understand the loss of life.
I accept that the Con has a good debate, but I still will not change my mind on this issue. I believe in our rights as humans. Our rights to do what we want with our bodies, internally. I know others have different opinions, but this is mine. I hope people vote for mine.
2) A fetus does not know its being killed and would probably end up dying anyway....
This continues to be a rather absurd and callous claim made by Pro. True, a fetus may not be consciously aware of death, but neither is a mentally disabled or sleeping adult. With this logic, we could also justify the killing of a sleeping teenager because she "wouldn't know she was being killed." Clearly this is not something anyone would advocate. Pro continues to assume that a mother can know that an unborn child will be mistreated and "end up dying anyway" after birth. This is impossible - I direct readers again to the example of Rebecca Kiessling, who was not aborted and is now a highly successful adult.
In closing, I agree with Pro that we have rights as humans. Since, scientifically, logically, and legally, unborn children are also humans, they too have rights. As such, abortion is the killing of a human being endowed with human rights, which is largely unacceptable. Pro has not shown this claim to be false, so I ask the vote go to Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by matt8800 11 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: "Also, 90% of abortions are performed before the child becomes a human, while it is still just a bundle of cells. It has no heartbeat and no brain. It is not any where near being alive. This isn't killing, its preventing." While that is poorly worded, I interpret that as meaning that if there is no brain activity, a conscious person does not yet exist. Con's argument centered around human rights and proving that the fetus will eventually grow into a conscious human. Con did not provide a satisfactory argument as to why ending the progression to what would eventually become a conscious human, at a point when no conscious human exists, is immoral.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.