The Instigator
Nicholas_Neal
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
CapsuleCityy
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Unborn human beings should have a legal right to live.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Nicholas_Neal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,232 times Debate No: 17380
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Nicholas_Neal

Pro

This is open to anyone who can intellectually argue the con to this statement.

Definitions

"unborn human beings"-The human being from conception to birth.

"legal right to live"- This is a prohibition against the initiation of homicide against another human being, except in the case of immediate self defense (which would include life of the mother.)
The first round will be for acceptance purposes.
The second round will be for stating our case.
The third round will be for rebuttals.
The fourth round will be for second rebuttals as well as closing statements.

One last rule, I know this can be a touchy subject but both sides should be mature enough to argue his or her case without resorting to any name calling.

For whoever wishes to argue con, good luck.

CapsuleCityy

Con

Greetings to the opponent, I accept the debate. I accept the burden of proving that "Fetuses" shouldn't have a legal right to live.

Good luck to the opponent, I am waiting anxiously for his opening contentions.


Debate Round No. 1
Nicholas_Neal

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this challenge and hope to have an honest and intellectually sound debate.

The basic pro-life position has two contentions and a natural conclusion from those contentions.

Contention 1. All human beings should have a legal right to live.

Now I admit that this is a moral position, and not necessarily a scientific one. However it is a moral position that people of all faiths and no faith can hold. It is based in the classical liberal notion that our rights are natural or inalienable and that the first of those rights is the right to life. It is based in the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of violence (including homicide) against other human beings. It is based in the idea of equality under the law, which prohibits legalizing the initiation of homicide against certain segments of the population, especially homicide based on primary characteristics of the victim. These are all moral concepts that are not exclusively religious. They are, in fact, considered pillars of enlightenment thinking and we do strive to write them into secular law (though we don’t always succeed in doing so.) It is from these concepts that we conclude that every human being should have a legal right to live.

Contention 2. The prenatal offspring (zygote, embryo, fetus) of two human parents is a human being.

While often mistakenly thought of as merely a religious doctrine, the humanity of prenatal offspring is a scientific fact. This is because species hood is hereditary and the fetus is the offspring of two human parents. This makes it scientifically impossible for the fetus to be anything else but a human being. Both embryologists and even pro-choice philosophers admit this contention.

"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."-Keith L. Moore,Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte."-Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller,Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

“It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.4–Peter Singer, Pro-choice philosopher, from his book Practical Ethics

While there are differences between fetuses and other human beings such as size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency, these differences are irrelevant in regards to the right to live. Midgets are of a different size than the typical NBA player, but that does not mean that midgets should have less of a legal right to live. Toddlers are less developed than teenagers, but that does not mean that toddlers should have less of a legal right to live. Living in a different environment than someone else should not lessen one’s legal right to live. Newborns are more dependent than adults, but that does not mean that newborns should have less of a legal right to live. All the differences between the fetus and born people are differences that born people already have between each other (albeit in less degree.) Thus the humanity of the unborn is a concept that people of all faiths and no faith can and should accept.

Since the fetus is a human being, initiating death against him or her is an initiation of homicide (note: I use the word “homicide” instead of “murder” due to the fact that murder is technically defined as the premeditated, illegal killing of another human being. “Homicide”, however, is a broader term that is defined as one human being killing another, whether legal or illegal.)

These contentions lead us to the conclusion that is the subject of this debate. Since all human beings should have a legal right to live and the unborn are human beings, then……

Conclusion: Unborn human beings should have a legal right to live.

I humbly await my opponent’s contentions.


CapsuleCityy

Con

Hello to all first off I would like to tell the opponent and audience members, that I hope they had a joyful and wonderful 4th of July, long live the United States of America. I will also like to thank the opponent for his well played out contentions it is up to my knowledge and rules of the debate that I will not rebut his cases rather, put forward my own. Therefor I would like to begin and once again good luck.

~=~= Contentions ~=~=

The main contentions of the anti-choice movement is that fetuses, embryo, blastocyst, are human being therefor it should be considered murder and illegal. This contention is filled with flaws and I will prove how. I will like to tell the opponent from a pro-choice point of view that wether abortion is legal or illegal woman will continue the practice of abortion. In fact abortions before Roe vs. Wade case in 1973 when it was illegal was still practiced and over 1.2 millions of Abortions a year we’re committed. What am I trying to prove with this introduction, that the criminalization of abortion did not stop abortions, woman still sought ways to have an abortion. Since abortions at this time we’re illegal and woman had to do it on their own, it is known that from the 1800’s to 1973 over thousands of woman as a result of illegal abortion we either or harmed or ended up dead. Many woman died or either suffered serious medical problems from self-induced Abortions.[1] Therefor is why I always state is not that we are pro-abortion but yet pro-choice, wether it is legal or illegal woman will have abortions and we should give them the best medical attention they deserve to get the abortion done with safely and away from harm. I will now introduce my first contention as to why fetuses being considered human beings is solely a subjective opinion not a fact. If I am able to do this I will make the resolution of this debate invalid.

ANTI-CHOICE CLAIMS HUMAN BEING

To be quite honest this is the only claim that anti-choicers have against abortion other then this they really have no case against abortion. First of all there is a difference between Human & Human Being. Let me define each word.

Human- of, relating to, or characteristic of people or human beingsHuman Being- a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

For example a piece of dandruff from my head is a human but not a human being. I know that any anti-choicers will rebut that a fetus can not be compared to a dandruff because the fetus has a unique set of chromosomes. Yet with cloning, a dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Even though it is cloning and would have my identical genetic make-up but it would be a unique human being. Also to be quite honest just like the dandruff a fetus only presents a chance of it becoming a human being. For example an acorn isn’t a tree and an egg isn’t a chicken. Also some anti-choicers may claim that a fetus has physical human qualities such as love and pathos. This is inaccurate a person only learns these kind of feelings such as sadness, anger, frustration, jealousy when we start to interact with others.

FETUS = HUMAN BEING = SUBJECTIVE OPINION

The biggest difference between a fetus and human being is that the fetus solely depends upon one woman to survive. While a newly born baby can be kept alive by anyone else other then his/her mother. Now before the opponent states that the newly born still is dependent upon people, this is true but the difference is that a fetus is dependent upon solely one person. While a newly born can depend on any person that takes the responsibility. The mother during pregnancy can’t hire someone to take care of the fetus for her, she is the only person that can take care of that fetus no one else. The biggest difference of all is that the fetus not only depends upon the mother but it resides inside her, to be considered a human being you have to be a separate individual. What makes us human beings is our personality, our soul and our way of communicating, understanding, love, feelings this is what makes us human beings.[2] Fetuses have none of the traits nor feelings and they should be considered human beings? The thought that a fetus should be considered a human being because it resides inside a human being is insulting and idiotic.

FETUSES AND RIGHT TO LIFE

Even though many anti-choicers claim that a fetus should have the right to life they still believe that if the woman is in harm or danger she can have an abortion and over-run this “right” that anti-choicers so much fight for. Goes to show that they believe the right of life of a fetus is negotiable. By them stating this anti-choicers agree without recognizing that a woman’s rights comes before the fetuses life. But any-who I will like to state that even if fetuses are granted the right to life this does not include for them to use the body of a human being. For example we’re not obligated by law to jump into a pool and save someone’s life as valiant as that may be. Therefor even if fetuses are allowed the right to life this doesn’t mean that woman are required to save his/her life by loaning her body to the fetus for nine months against her will. Now the opponent may say that being pregnant is not the same as being a good samaritan because they chose to have sex. But sex is not necessarily mean pregnancy people have the right for non pro-creative sex. This argument is also very sexist since it only punishes woman, but yet men we’re also part of the sexual behavior. Even if fetuses are granted the right to life this doesn’t mean that there right to life over-rules the woman right of choice which is a part of democracy which our country (United States) is based upon. For one to have the right to life one must get a life. So I will repeat a fetus is not a human being it depends upon a woman and only that woman to develop It’s growth. In the United States a fetus can not be considered a person nor have right since American citizenship are limited to those “born or naturalized within the United States.” Many anti-choicers demand that fetuses have rights like us human beings have, such as the freedom of speech, media, bear arms, assembly etc. Since fetuses can not practice any of these rights why should they be granted with them? This puts fetuses in an entirely different category from human beings now doesn’t it? The biggest problem of all with granting fetuses with rights is when the woman and her fetus present themselves with conflict. For example if she simply doesn’t want the fetus. The fact that anti-choicers want for a woman voice to be shut and over-ridden by a cluster of undifferentiated cells the size of the period at the end of this sentence is not only bizarre, it's insulting.

~=~= CONCLUSION ~=~=

I will leave it with these two contentions for now. No woman citizen of this country with rights voice be unheard when she demands an abortion. Many woman died during the times when abortion we're illegal let's not go back to those times. If we can save a human beings life let us do so. We shouldn't make abortion illegal to accommodate anti-choicers morals.

Joycelyn Elders:

"We really need to get over this love affair with the fetus and start worrying about children."

Frederica Mathewes-Green:

"No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg."

Hillary Clinton:

"I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion."

LINKS

[1] http://www.prochoice.org...

[2] http://farrahjphoenix.com...

[3] http://civilliberty.about.com...


Debate Round No. 2
Nicholas_Neal

Pro

I would like to remind my opponent that the main rule of conduct we established was no name calling, and “anti-choice” is surely a pejorative. If he does not want to use the term “pro-life” to describe my side, than he could at least use the term “anti-abortion” or “abortion opponent.” He should keep in mind, that I refrained from using terms like “pro-abortion” in my opening argument. Now I am first going to address his comments regarding illegal abortions. He stated

In fact abortions before Roe vs. Wade case in 1973 when it was illegal was still practiced and over 1.2 millions of Abortions a year we’re committed.

However the late Bernard Nathanson, the founder of NARAL, admitted that such numbers we’re over inflated. He stated.

“We aroused

enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of

illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but

the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often

enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around

200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000.”- Bernard Nathanson[1.]

Now it’s true that there was a time in the U.S when the number of women dying from illegal abortions was high, however this number began to drop in the 40’s and 50’s before abortion was legalized. The number of deaths really dropped due to use of penicillin not the authorization to kill fetuses. In fact according to the world health organization Ireland, Mauritius and Chile have the lowest maternal death rates in their continental region (Ireland actually has the lowest maternal death rates in the world) and all three of these countries had abortion mostly illegal [2.]

My opponent also attacked the second pro-life contention. Claiming that the humanity of the unborn is a matter of subjective opinion. He claims that fetuses are human in the same way that a piece of dandruff is human. However this is a false comparison. Dandruff is a part of a whole human being. The fetus however is the offspring of two human parents. I don’t know how I can make this any clearer. Offspring inherit their species hood from his or her parents. We can therefore say with certitude that the prenatal offspring of two human parents is a human being. In fact they are human beings my opponents own definition of a human being.

Human Being- a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Offspring and child are reasonably synonymous. Therefore my second contention still stands.

My opponent also points out differences between the fetus and born people.

Like size

The fact that anti-choicers want for a woman voice to be shut and over-ridden by a cluster of undifferentiated cells the size of the period at the end of this sentence is not only bizarre, it's insulting.

Degree of dependency

“The biggest difference between a fetus and human being is that the fetus solely depends upon one woman to survive. While a newly born baby can be kept alive by anyone else other then his/her mother. Now before the opponent states that the newly born still is dependent upon people, this is true but the difference is that a fetus is dependent upon solely one person.

And even societal differences

“What makes us human beings is our personality, our soul and our way of communicating, understanding, love, feelings this is what makes us human beings.

“Many anti-choicers demand that fetuses have rights like us human beings have, such as the freedom of speech, media, bear arms, assembly etc. Since fetuses can not practice any of these rights why should they be granted with them? This puts fetuses in an entirely different category from human beings now doesn’t it?

My opening statement already rebuts the size difference. In regards to comparing fetal dependency to newborn dependency, the fact that the fetus is more dependent on a specific person does not make them less worthy of the legal right to live. This is because degree of dependency does not make it okay to kill another human being. Now I did not mention societal differences within my opening arguments, quite frankly because I was not expecting such a bad argument. Does a newborn really have a personality, understanding or even love either? No, but that doesn’t make him or her less of a human being. Also I don't know of any pro-lifer who's said that fetuses should have first amendment or second amendment rights. Those are rights that, as we grow, we learn how to practice. Newborns can’t practice them either (unless you want to count crying as speech.) However, a right that we should have at all ages is the right to live, which is what this debate is about.

My opponent also points to the issue of bodily autonomy.

even if fetuses are allowed the right to life this doesn’t mean that woman are required to save his/her life by loaning her body to the fetus for nine months against her will

Now the bodily autonomy argument is probably the strongest pro-choice argument (I’m not saying it’s right I’m just saying it’s strong.) Primarily why it’s so strong is that it concedes prenatal person hood rather than rely on all those anti-fetal-person hood arguments that I just rebutted. However even it comes up to problems, when considering the fact that abortion involves initiating homicide rather than simply letting the fetus die. It also fails to see that the fetus’ youth puts it in a different category than adults who can care for themselves. A hospital can’t claim to not be obligated to take care of newborns. They would be charged with starving children to death. Finally the fetus’ placement within the mother is an involuntary characteristic of the fetus rather than a willing act of assault that would otherwise justify retaliatory violence. We can’t kill other human beings for primary characteristics that are beyond his or her control. Also in regard to the life of the mother issue, it is not as if we pro-lifers regard the fetus’ life less or more important than the mother’s. It is that usually the fetus is un-savable anyway and thus the only life we can save is the mother, and it also becomes a question of losing two lives v. losing one.

Now my final rebuttal will be to my opponent’s legal argument.

“In the United States a fetus can not be considered a person nor have right since American citizenship are limited to those“born or naturalized within the United States.”

Well actually citizens are not the only ones who the U.S. Gov’t prohibits from killing. The 14thamendment states that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

We for example are not allowed to initiate homicide against illegal immigrants. Now I understand that the Roe v. Wade denies fetal person hood. However this debate is about whether or not unborn human beings should have a legal right to live. Not whether they do have a legal right to live. Legal concepts of person hood can change and I am making the case that it should change to include more human beings than it does now.

Again I think my opponent for taking up this challenge, and I humbly await his response.

[1.] http://www.aboutabortions.com...

[2.] http://secularprolife.org...

CapsuleCityy

Con

Hello I would like to thank the opponent for his response, I apologize if any of my comments we're pejorative but I wasn't the only one my opponent states how he wasn't expecting such a bad argument from me which as well is pejorative. So the opponent as well did not obey his regulations, I will now start to put forward some rebuttals.

"The number of woman dying from illegal abortions was around 200-500 annually." - Bernard Nathanson.

The opponent nor Bernard seem to understand that with better treatment for abortions through medical attention the chances of woman dying are really low. While doing it illegal woman still run a much bigger chance of death, it doesn't matter if the number of woman dying from illegal abortions is ten million or simply one it's still a death we can prevent by treating them thoroughly. This link I will provide it's but a taste of the pain woman seeking abortions went through.[1]

"Dandruff is part of a whole human being."

It is true that a fetus is the result of two human parents. (I will not call a fetus is an offspring because an offspring is a persons child and a fetus according to the proof I have presented today a fetus can not be considered a child since it isn't a human being.) But the fetus is also part of one human beings body just like a dandruff and a fetus and dandruff present a chance of actually becoming a human being not a 100% security.

Yes the definition Human Being states a child of the species homo sapiens but a fetus is not considered a child. Since a child is a human being and a fetus is not.

"Offspring and child are reasonably synonymous. Therefore my second contention still stands"

I have stated many reasons as to why a fetus can not be considered an offspring nor child.

"Midgets are of a different size than the typical NBA player, but that does not mean that midgets should have less of a legal right to live."

There is a similarity between NBA players and midgets and is because of this similarity that even though midgets are shorter they still have the same legal right to live as an NBA player does. The similarity is that they are both human beings unlike a fetus and a woman. They both show human being characteristics, there is no opinion and no doubt between the fact that an NBA player and a midget are human beings, yet it is an opinion that fetuses are human beings. The opponent makes the same connection for toddlers and teenagers but my same rebuttal will stand.

"Now I did not mention societal differences within my opening arguments, quite frankly because I was not expecting such a bad argument. Does a newborn really have a personality, understanding or even love either? No, but that doesn’t make him or her less of a human being."

Actually scientifically speaking yes a newborn not only has personality but shows it as well. A newborn is considered a newborn from the day it is born till the age of 12 months.[2] Therefor at the age of 2 months the newborn starts to show social grins to familiar faces. At the age of 4 months the newborn starts to imitate those around him. Stick you're tongue out at him/her and he/she might do the same. At the age of 7 months the newborn will raise his hands for you to hold him/her and carry him/her as well he/she will be only grabbing his/her favorite toys. At the age of 11 months the newborn will be able to say "mama" even though the newborn first word may differentiate according to his surroundings. This means that the age of 11 months this newborn will start to practice one of his/her rights, this right that we all enjoy the freedom of speech. At the age of 12 months the newborn will have the motor and communication skills to give the one's he/she loves and is familiar with a kiss. All of these actions shows that newborn know who they love and who they prefer.[3] This shows that they contain human characteristics. By all these actions the newborn is showing love to those he is familiarized with yet the opponent believes this is a bad argument? Also a baby can practice his freedom of religion at any age, when I was 5 months I was baptized in the "holy" waters even though I was only 5 months and was not aware of what was going on I was still practicing my freedom of religion. So yes a newborn does put some of his rights from the first amendment in action.

The opponent rebuts my contention by attempting to make some sort of similarities between a hospital and a mother yet doctors and nurses get a paycheck to save life's it is their job to help any person's that life's may be in danger that comes to them. It isn't the job of a mother to do so. Therefore the opponent still fails to prove to me and audience as to why a woman should be obligated to save the life of a fetus. Though morally most people would agree with, it is still her choice and in no way should we force a woman to carry a fetus or to some woman a burden inside of her for 9 months. It is her body and if she wants to put a bullet through her head or simply have an abortion the final decision is hers and we shouldn't come between it.

"Well actually citizens are not the only ones who the U.S. Gov’t prohibits from killing. The 14thamendment states that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws we for example are not allowed to initiate homicide against illegal immigrants."

This is true but illegal immigrants are human beings which reside within the United States. Also if the opponent is not aware of the fact that if a man/woman kill a fetus while in the mothers womb it is considered a legal felony and he/she will be charged with two different charges one for the attack/killing of a woman and the killing of the fetus. The government has placed this right because no one besides the woman knows what she would like to do with her body, so abortion should remain legal because a woman is making choice upon her own body while another person that comes & kills this fetus does not know the intentions of the woman with her fetus. Wether she wanted it to become her future child or if she was going to have an abortion.

Thanks and I await the opponent's response.

[1] http://www.now.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.parenting.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Nicholas_Neal

Pro

“I apologize if any of my comments we're pejorative but I wasn't the only one my opponent states how he wasn't expecting such a bad argument from me which as well is pejorative. So the opponent as well did not obey his regulations”

I don’t want to get into a side argument about this, but since you accused me of breaking my rule, I’ll go ahead and defend myself. Calling an argument bad and calling your opponents “anti-choice” or conversely “anti-life” are not the same thing. One is aimed at the argument. The other is aimed at the person. I did not the break the rule regarding name calling, when I called my opponent's argument “bad” just as my opponent did not break my rule when he called my anti-abortion contentions “bizarre”, ”insulting” and “idiotic.” He only crossed the line when he called those who hold my position “anti-choice.”

“It is true that a fetus is the result of two human parents. (I will not call a fetus is an offspring because an offspring is a persons child and a fetus according to the proof I have presented today a fetus can not be considered a child since it isn't a human being.”

“Offspring-the product of the reproductive processes of an animal or plant”- Merriam Webster

The fetus is the product of reproductive processes of two human parents, ergo he or she is human offspring and therefore a human being.

Now in regards to comparing the fetus to dandruff, my opponent stated

But the fetus is also part of one human beings body just like a dandruff and a fetus and dandruff present achanceof actually becoming a human being not a 100% security.”

A fetus is not a part of the mother like the dandruff is. He or she is not even part of the mother at all. He or she is attached to the mother. He or she has his or her own genetic code, his or her own blood type, and if the fetus is a boy, he has a different genitalia than the mother. Dandruff is dead skin cells that, when alive, helped form together to make up the whole being of the mother. Every cell of the prenate, from the zygote to the fetus, formed together to create the whole of the fetus. That is because the fetus is a separate human being that, while yes is temporarily dependent upon the mother to live, is still not a part of her. If he or she was, then we would be detached organs.

“Actually scientifically speaking yes a newborn not only has personality but shows it as well. A newborn is considered a newborn from the day it is born till the age of 12 months.[2] Therefor at the age of 2 months the newborn starts to show social grins to familiar faces. At the age of 4 months the newborn starts to imitate those around him. Stick you're tongue out at him/her and he/she might do the same. At the age of 7 months the newborn will raise his hands for you to hold him/her and carry him/her as well he/she will be only grabbing his/her favorite toys. At the age of 11 months the newborn will be able to say "mama" even though the newborn first word may differentiate according to his surroundings. This means that the age of 11 months this newborn will start to practice one of his/her rights, this right that we all enjoy the freedom of speech. At the age of 12 months the newborn will have the motor and communication skills to give the one's he/she loves and is familiar with a kiss. All of these actions shows that newborn know who they love and who they prefer.[3] This shows that they contain human characteristics. By all these actions the newborn is showing love to those he is familiarized with yet the opponent believes this is a bad argument?”

It’s a bad argument because before those two months the newborn cannot do any those things. Yet no one would take away his or her legal right to live before those two months.

“Also a baby can practice his freedom of religion at any age, when I was 5 months I was baptized in the "holy" waters even though I was only 5 months and was not aware of what was going on I was still practicing my freedom of religion. So yes a newborn does put some of his rights from the first amendment in action.”

That’s more of an exercise of freedom on part of the parents than anything else. The new born is not choosing to be baptized therefore he or she is not “putting his rights into action.” His or her parents are putting their rights into action.

“The opponent rebuts my contention by attempting to make some sort of similarities between a hospital and a mother yet doctors and nurses get a paycheck to save life's it is their job to help any person's that life's may be in danger that comes to them. It isn't the job of a mother to do so.”

Actually both mothers and fathers are morally and legally obligated to provide some care for their offspring. Even in regards to adoption, the parents are still obligated to keep the child safe until they bring him or her to his or her new guardian[1.] Also my opponent failed to rebut my other criticism of the bodily autonomy argument. That abortion does not merely involve letting the fetus die. It involves initiating homicide against the fetus either by poisoning or by dismemberment. Purposely killing another human being is different than letting him or her drown. The fetus’ attachment to the mother is a natural, involuntary, primary characteristic, and one cannot initiate homicide against people for such characteristics.

“The opponent nor Bernard seem to understand that with better treatment for abortions through medical attention the chances of woman dying are really low. While doing it illegal woman still run a much bigger chance of death, it doesn't matter if the number of woman dying from illegal abortions is ten million or simply one it's still a death we can prevent by treating them thoroughly.”

I’ve already proved that abortion is an act of homicide. It is not justifiable to make an initiation of homicide legal simply to make it safer. There’s no such thing as a safe homicide, a human being is always killed. Also, as I pointed out earlier, there are countries in which abortion is illegal in most circumstances (such as Ireland, Chile, Mauritius) yet they still have the lowest maternal death rates.

In the second round, I gave my main two contentions that led to the conclusion that is the subject of this debate. While my opponent has given his objections to my second contention as well as my conclusion, I have rebutted all of them. Thus my whole case still stands.

For my closing remarks, I would like to say something about another cause that I’ve worked in and how it relates to this. One of the things that my opponent and I have in common is that we are both answered "con" to the death penalty. In fact, I was one of those who wrote to my governor encouraging him to sign a bill that would abolish the death penalty in Illinois. The bill passed, but unfortunately the death penalty wasn’t fully abolished. The one that was carried out in prisons was abolished, yes, but the one that is carried out in clinics and hospitals against human beings, whose only crime was existing at an inconvenient time, still remains. Therefore I will work to abolish that death penalty as well, because unborn human beings should have a legal right to live. I appreciate my opponent’s participation in this debate though we disagree. Vote pro.

[1.] http://supreme.justia.com...

CapsuleCityy

Con

CapsuleCityy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Nicholas_Neal 6 years ago
Nicholas_Neal
No prob.
Posted by CapsuleCityy 6 years ago
CapsuleCityy
Hello,

I apologize since I will reply a tad late, I have been busy with some personal matters. Never the less I will be able to post my rebuttals sometime this night or tomorrow.

Thanks for you're patience and goodbye.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BennyW 6 years ago
BennyW
Nicholas_NealCapsuleCityyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Even without the forfeit, con failed to properly address the issue and did resort to ad homenim attacks.
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 6 years ago
ApostateAbe
Nicholas_NealCapsuleCityyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit