Abortion ought to be abolished, permanently!

[Lan]

he was smart I'll give you that but my chart shows that this is part of a cooling and heating cycle.

Your chart is a bit off and doesn't look at the bigger picture of things. Yes, there are glacial and inter-glacial periods. A natural cycle. There are even variations within the current inter-glacial cycle we are in now. But what you didn't mention with that graph is that the earth has actually been consistently heating up despite minor fluctuations. We know this because the ice caps have been consistently melting throughout the entire Holocene. Another thing you didn't mention is that mass extinctions correlate with inter-glacial periods. I'm not sure that humans could survive in the climate of T-Rex. Our anatomy is not designed to live in that atmosphere.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Lan

[WISD0MTREE]

North Korea is only developed in areas the government shows people. Have you ever seen it from space? Electricity is a commodity only shared by those who bend over backwards for a regime they all know is as twisted as a rope.

Second, the growing population is the problem to how much resources we use. So even if we use them more efficiently, we are still using them more than we were before. So that point is pretty mute.

As for bioplastic and metal, metal is very renewable. It's also recyclable unlike plastic. Plastic is not recycled, it's downgraded and most of it is never even actually recycled in said downgrading system. But with that being said we actually do have synthetic oils and plastics that can be made. The problem is, the cost to produce them is far, far beyond affordability in the foreseeable future. So you say they will search for an alternative but they already have been. And so far that search has made some progress but has failed to find anything affordable. Which is THE issue with replacing oil. Affordability. We already have tons of replacements, but nothing we can actually use.

Their missile program is way ahead of the rest of the developing world, despite limitations that the global community has put on information sharing between DPRK and everyone. 

So if we had 100 people using 1 pound of coal a day, it would be better than 1,000 people using 0.1 pounds of coal a day? I think not. 

Cell phones weren't cheap until the technology advanced. How much did one 4 GB stick of RAM cost in 2000? Now they are standard in lots of computers under $1,000. By the time we run out of oil, some replacements will be viable. See Moore's Law.

 

What?

Why not? He wasn't a stupid man. Just like when Assad was calling the rebels terrorists and the world rejected his claims and laughed just because we saw him as a tyrant. Who's laughing now? Not the west.

Please tell me you are trolling. Terrorists being right about terroristy things isn't the same as terrorists being right about climate change. 

Edited August 3, 2015 by WISD0MTREE

[Kyubnyan]

Your chart is a bit off and doesn't look at the bigger picture of things. Yes, there are glacial and inter-glacial periods. A natural cycle. There are even variations within the current inter-glacial cycle we are in now. But what you didn't mention with that graph is that the earth has actually been consistently heating up despite minor fluctuations. We know this because the ice caps have been consistently melting throughout the entire Holocene. Another thing you didn't mention is that mass extinctions correlate with inter-glacial periods. I'm not sure that humans could survive in the climate of T-Rex. Our anatomy is not designed to live in that atmosphere.

Glaciers have melted before and they'll melt again.

[Lan]

Their missile program is way ahead of the rest of the developing world, despite limitations that the global community has put on information sharing between DPRK and everyone. 

So if we had 100 people using 1 pound of coal a day, it would be better than 1,000 people using 0.1 pounds of coal a day? I think not. 

Cell phones weren't cheap until the technology advanced. How much did one 4 GB stick of RAM cost in 2000? Now they are standard in lots of computers under $1,000. By the time we run out of oil, some replacements will be viable. See Moore's Law. 

I doubt it. I mean, if modern civilization continued on current trends infinitely, yes. But if you ask me we are already seeing multiple issues caused by a finite world coming to life. So the question is, will we be able to solve all these massive problems before society implodes from overpopulation? My personal guess is no because there are far too many of them set up in such a way that no solution exists. Like population in general. We can't decrease the current population or our financial system falls apart. We can't keep growing because we are overpopulating. We face a pretty wide range of inevitable cataclysmic issues in this generation that have been happening for some time, and only now has anyone bothered to realize it.

[WISD0MTREE]

and only now has anyone bothered to realize it.

And there aren't many people who realise it, right? 

[Lan]

Glaciers have melted before and they'll melt again.

Of course they will, but can we survive in that climate? Highly unlikely. Species die off in inter-glacial periods for this reason. If you think the whole climate is a simple as "glaciers will melt and that's all that will change" you're being naive. Countless things will change.

[Kyubnyan]

Of course they will, but can we survive in that climate? Highly unlikely. Species die off in inter-glacial periods for this reason. If you think the whole climate is a simple as "glaciers will melt and that's all that will change" you're being naive. Countless things will change.

Maybe it's our time, I mean in the broad spectrum this has happened to species many times in history how are we supposed to reverse climate change which is out of our control.  

[Lan]

And there aren't many people who realise it, right? 

Even if everyone did, I'm quite convinced that it's irreversible and the only things that will change with the way people behave is that there is going to be a whole lot more war in the coming decades. That's very typical human behavior to throw blame in the most convenient direction.

Maybe it's our time, I mean in the broad spectrum this has happened to species many times in history how are we supposed to reverse climate change which is out of our control.  

I agree.

[Kyubnyan]

Even if everyone did, I'm quite convinced that it's irreversible and the only things that will change with the way people behave is that there is going to be a whole lot more war in the coming decades. That's very typical human behavior to throw blame in the most convenient direction.

I agree.

Yeah those darn humans.

[Kyubnyan]

I really don't care what happens to humanity I just want to sit back and watch the fireworks.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Kyubey

[WISD0MTREE]

Even if everyone did, I'm quite convinced that it's irreversible and the only things that will change with the way people behave is that there is going to be a whole lot more war in the coming decades. That's very typical human behavior to throw blame in the most convenient direction.

More war? I thought that it was guaranteed. Oh well, I guess I have job security. 

[Edward]

Since we are concerned about overpopulation, I guess no more starting a family for everybody, simply because there are billions of people in this world. Once everyone dies off, then we can start having families in again. Yeah, like that makes a lot of sense. 

[Buorhann]

Did my comment on this topic get deleted or did I forget to post it? Either way, those that are unable to have abortions should not get as powerful an opinion on the subject as those that are able to get an abortion.

 

Takes two to get to that decision.

 

EDIT:

 

Thinking on this subject reminded me of a highschool fling.  Ended up coming across a couple years ago during some highschool reunion thing.  Found out from another source that she has had 5 abortions since graduation ( within a 13 year span ) and now she has difficulty conceiving due to some health issue that causes her to have miscarriages.  No kids, but now she wants one.  At least she can adopt.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Buorhann

[Clarke]

Abortion should be a right available to every woman.

I wouldn't have minded being aborted as well, shit happens and well you wouldn't know you were aborted because you were never born. 

[Jodo]

[Guest hawkeye]

we live in culture where it is seen ok for woman to have abortions. we hold the wants of some people and allow them to commit genocide

 

this is not ok and should be banned

[Braunsberg]

Since we are concerned about overpopulation, I guess no more starting a family for everybody, simply because there are billions of people in this world. Once everyone dies off, then we can start having families in again. Yeah, like that makes a lot of sense. 

Nobody ever said humans should kill themselves off to solve overpopulation. The ideal solution to overpopulation would be reducing the growth rate to 0, meaning that only enough children are born to replace the people that die. That doesn't mean humans will die off, that means the population will simply stay the same size.

 

Also, in case you weren't aware, the human population is quickly approaching the Earth's carrying capacity. And unlike our friend Luxa von Bismarck claims, reaching carrying capacity would mean that there are too few resources to feed and care for the human population, and as a result, growth would halt and subsequently large numbers of people would begin to die. That process would persist until the population was again low enough to provide for itself. That's elementary ecology.

 

The point is, by encouraging people to keep having more and more children, and by defending every single fetus as having the same legal status as a citizen, you are more than likely condemning the future population to more and more suffering, because the more people there are, the faster we will reach carrying capacity and the more severe shortages will be. It obviously seems unnatural to oppose population growth - because it is, since we are driven to reproduce - but you can imagine that a world at carrying capacity would be utterly disastrous to society.

[Edward]

Nobody ever said humans should kill themselves off to solve overpopulation. The ideal solution to overpopulation would be reducing the growth rate to 0, meaning that only enough children are born to replace the people that die. That doesn't mean humans will die off, that means the population will simply stay the same size.

 

Also, in case you weren't aware, the human population is quickly approaching the Earth's carrying capacity. And unlike our friend Luxa von Bismarck claims, reaching carrying capacity would mean that there are too few resources to feed and care for the human population, and as a result, growth would halt and subsequently large numbers of people would begin to die. That process would persist until the population was again low enough to provide for itself. That's elementary ecology.

 

The point is, by encouraging people to keep having more and more children, and by defending every single fetus as having the same legal status as a citizen, you are more than likely condemning the future population to more and more suffering, because the more people there are, the faster we will reach carrying capacity and the more severe shortages will be. It obviously seems unnatural to oppose population growth - because it is, since we are driven to reproduce - but you can imagine that a world at carrying capacity would be utterly disastrous to society.

So how do we decide who lives and who dies? And how do you determine how many people are dying everyday, to replace them? And by how many people should we replace them? And also, since you seem to know about overpopulation and whatnot, tell me what is the exact number of people we can have in the world, before we reach the Earth's capacity? What is our current resources, how much have we used, and how much left for us to use, before we run out of them, completely? The current generation and future generation might as well not have children, honestly. Because we're at 7 billion. Isn't that many people for you? And since you're concerned about resources, shouldn't we preserve them for ourselves, and kill the others off so they won't make us use up the resources faster?

[Kurdanak]

My thoughts on abortion tend to be rather moderate, being split up into each trimester

 

First trimester abortions should be legal, without question, while second trimester abortions should be much more heavily regulated, and third trimester abortions should be outlawed unless it's a case of rape, the mother's health, or another similarly serious scenario. Although I may not agree with it in most cases, it's hardly reasonable to outright outlaw all abortions. Abortions done unprofessionally and illegally should clearly be shut down, for obvious reasons.

 

Regardless, sex-ed! With the proper education and support, abortion will rarely even be necessary.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Kurdanak

[Lan]

So how do we decide who lives and who dies? And how do you determine how many people are dying everyday, to replace them? And by how many people should we replace them? And also, since you seem to know about overpopulation and whatnot, tell me what is the exact number of people we can have in the world, before we reach the Earth's capacity? What is our current resources, how much have we used, and how much left for us to use, before we run out of them, completely? The current generation and future generation might as well not have children, honestly. Because we're at 7 billion. Isn't that many people for you? And since you're concerned about resources, shouldn't we preserve them for ourselves, and kill the others off so they won't make us use up the resources faster?

Read the links I posted. There is no hard cap on Earths carrying capacity for a number of reasons. But we are approaching it, if not, have already passed it. Considering we are using resources at an unsustainable rate, I'd say we've passed that point. We can look at demographics to see how many people are being born and how many are dying. And finally, people shouldn't stop having children. They should just guide reproduction wisely. Have children out of necessity not personal amusement. 

[Lannan13]

Contention 1: Self-Awareness

 

 

One of the arguments for abortion is that the fetus is not self-aware, but the fetus becomes fully aware during the 24^th week of Pregnancy, which is why many abortions in the 3^rd Trimester are illegal. (http://www.scientificamerican.com...) Many people believe that is the qualifications for the starting of a FDH (fully developed human) is when the creature is self-aware, but this has many flaws. One being that in cases of sleep and in cases of comas. Under these situations the person is not self-aware, does this mean that they are no longer a FDH until they have awoken? However the person’s ability to be self-aware is irrelevant to their personhood as it is an inherent capacity for self-awareness.

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.â€" He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,â€" and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.â€" He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.â€"
 

You can see here that this further my point as one can see that life begins at conception and throughout the child's life is concidered a human life. The moment of conception is when life starts. This is because this is when you start being and because you are beginning to being. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founder of National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), created a movie that showed the realities of abortion to inform Americans. In his movie Silent Scream he stated, "“Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us." Here the founder of an Abortion Rights group showed that modern technology shows us that the unborn child is indeed another human being and a valued memeber of the community though he is still unborn. (Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979).

 

"In fact, philosophers often use the terms self and person interchangeably: a capacity for self-awareness is necessary for full personhood.â€" (http://socrates.berkeley.edu...)

If that is true then we can see that it’s degrading as different levels of self-awareness would vary across the board. Meaning that certain people like that of “specialâ€" peoples and those in different medical conditions would not be considered FDH and be up for “abortionâ€" depicting as such in the Unwind Trilogy by Neil Shusterman. Meaning that they would also be considered less of a person than the average American. With the quote bellow we can see that people are people because they are human, not due to something they gain nor loose in their lifetime, so this can work all across the board in this debate.

"Humans have value simply because they are human, not because of some acquired property they may gain or lose in their lifetime." (Scott Klusendorf, "Advanced Pro-Life Apologetics" Biola University lecture notes)

By accepting the legality of abortion we can see that we are endorsing that a human life is disposable as Pope Francis called it the “Throw away culture.â€" We get rid of the unborn like they are unwanted pickles on our Hamburghers from McDonald’s and just imagine the horror of never getting to see the light of day? When we look at our stages of life we can see that from it was you there at conception and you’re the same now (though taller and more mentally developed) and we can see that it was you at birth and you are here debating me, so we can see that it was you in the womb, not the body of something that would later become you. This means that once you were fetus, if it is wrong to kill you now, then it was wrong to kill you then. (https://bearspace.baylor.edu...)

In the end we can see that at the least a fetus has the same FDH levels that of a person in a coma or asleep.

 

 

Every organism must be able to maintain a consistent internal environment. This is often seen done through sweating, excretion and blood plays a major role. There is no set law on how one’s internal environment must be maintained, so long as the organism can accomplish this, it’s performing Homeostasis. The Fetus performs a great deal of Homeostasis through the Placenta. The Amniotic Fluid also plays a large role in maintaining body temperature. The fluid stays slightly above the body temperature of the mother in order to keep the fetus’s body temperature where it needs to be. (http://americanpregnancy.org...)
The hormones that help maintain Homeostasis are produced in the Placenta. The Fetus must maintain glucose homeostasis, body temperature, and body fluid homeostasis.

 

 

 

Every organism must require Metabolism, the transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and the decomposing of organic substances (catabolism). The energy is used to vastly support homeostasis and other phenomena.The fetus maintains a good deal of metabolism on its own. Many primary hormones, such as insulin and glucagon, don’t pass through the placenta. This means the hormones are produced within the fetus. The mother’s own hormones play a minor role in the fetus’s Metabolism. (http://www.reproduction-online.org...)

 

 

There are many who believe that life starts with a heartbeat, or some who argue that it’s about being self-sustaining. Neither is correct. Life has nothing to do with a heartbeat, or self-sustainment. This is an issue of flawed Cause and Correlation. That because someone is alive because he has a heartbeat, when in reality he has a heartbeat, and brain signals, and digestion… because he is alive. We can measure if you die by using your heartbeat, but it’s not because of your heartbeat that you are a living creature. Your heartbeat just keeps you alive. A tree has no heartbeat, nor does jellyfish, but even they are alive. 
In all reality, a heartbeat is merely a side-function of Respiration, the true character of life.

 

Self-Sustainment isn’t used to measure life either. The idea that humans are self-sustaining is far from reality. Humans depend on bacteria to live, if we lost the trillions of microorganisms and bacteria in our bodies, we would simply begin to die. (http://www.scientificamerican.com...)
There are many humans who can’t live on their own, some using iron lungs, and others in comas. Being able to live is required; being able to do it independently for this very reason is not. It should also be noted that parasitic creatures like the Candiru, or the tapeworm also fall under this category and we still concider them alive. While this seem less than humanly, living isn’t about how pretty or desirable the creature is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contention 2: After Affects of Abortion

In China, women their generally tend to have the world’s lowest rates of breast cancer, but the numbers have been skyrocketing so the Chinese government launched several studies into the incident and has found that an abortion has the chance to increase the rate of breast cancer after an abortion by 600%! This study was backed by the New York City Science Advisor to the Coalition of Breast Cancer/abortion, Joel Bind. Bind has stated that the link found between the two is that of a cigarette link to lung cancer. (http://www.naturalnews.com...) Dr. Jane Orient has found that the reasoning behind this is that estrogen increases by 2000% during the end of the 1^st Trimester which in turn increases vulnerability to estrogen-fueled cancers and that a full pregnancy decreases the risk of milk producing stem cells to divide into that of cancerous cells. (http://www.sciencedirect.com...)

 

As we can see from above is that there is a direct corrilation between abortions and breast cancer as the statistics show that it's near 1 abortion per breast cancer incident.

 

They have also found that abortion causes PASS (Post Abortion Stress Syndrome) which leaves women in mental anguish similiar to the effects of shel shock. (http://www.abort73.com...)

 

Contention 3: Life of the Mother

 

In 2012, the Dublin Declaration on Mental Healthcare reached a ground breaking finding that abortion is not necissary to save the life of a mother as 140 scientists observed this study. They released the following findings.

 

-“As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

-We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

-We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.â€(http://www.lifenews.com...)

 

Since I've ran out of characters I shall pass things off to Con for this debate.

 

Contention 1: Self Awareness.

The evaluation of life, as defined by Biologists, is done by locating Signs or Characteristics all life possess. While no full list is accepted on a universal scale, at least twelve characteristics are generally used in Biology, often in lists of five or seven. They are as followed:

Organization: Defined as composing of cells.

Genes: To consist of DNA and RNA.

Adaption: Changing to match the environment around it.

Homeostasis: Maintaining a consistent internal environment.

Metabolism: Sometimes called Thermodynamics, it’s the transformation and use of energy.

Response: To react to stimuli or to the environment around it.

Reproduction: To be able reproduce or bear children.

Growth: To grow in size, usually referred to as Cell Growth.

Excretion: Removing wasted from the organism’s body.

Respiration: The intake of gases needed to live.

Feeding: The consumption of resources to live.

Movement: The ability to move that even plants have.

The Characteristics of Life are used to measure whether or not something is alive or non-living. As with any measurement, the unit of measurement must match the thing being measured. It is completely useless to measure weight in inches, thus showing my opponent's umbrella is irrelivant and this is the proper measurement. For that reason, we have to use these Characteristics used to determine life among single-celled organisms to determine if a Zygote is really alive. Measuring a Zygote by the standards of a full grown, multi-celled organism would be a fraudulent means to determine it not living, sadly too often successfully used to do so.
 

It is well known among biologists that the fetus responses to external stimuli. At what week it begins to react is not known, and no estimates are universally accepted. [4]
A test performed in the early 20th century, studying the effects of sound on fetuses found considerable amounts of data on the subject. The Fetus does react to sound and other stimuli. [5]
This is seen again in the study of 100 Dutch women, where the fetus responds to sound before adapting to it. [6]

In the study mentioned in the prior segment, the researchers used noise to test the fetus, and found that the fetus would stop responding. It adapted to the noise through habituation or sensitization. These are primitive forms of memory, but the fetus did nonetheless adapt to and remembered the noise. There is other research that suggests the fetus adapts to stress. This adaptation usually involves increased maturation in the Brain and Lungs. [7]

 

Being able unable to reproduce only means you aren’t fully developed or that your development was messed up, but you can still be alive.So how does one handle this characteristic? A good move would be to accept that this characteristic need only be found in one’s species. Of course, we could also use information from Vorvick and Stork to conclude that, on a cellular level, the zygote is reproducing. [8]
Starting as a single cell, the Zygote begins cell division (reproduction). This mean that, for the first few weeks, the fetus is capable of fulfilling the reproduction characteristic. For the sake of reason, we will conclude that after the fetus reaches a certain level of development, where cellular development is less as an issue, cellular reproduction no longer counts. We will also conclude that once living, a fetus can’t die and come back to life months later. The fetus reproduces as a cell, and afterwards, is protected by the principle that it’s already fulfilled its criteria, and that reproduction need only be a specie’s characteristic.

 

Last round I have already posted many of these reason on how the fetus is alive in refutation to my opponent's second contention, but I'll continue by extending those points across as they were dropped by adding on to it as they help prove this point. The fetus does not breathe through its mouth, but through its umbilical cord. The Mother inhales, and the oxygen is sent to the fetus through the placenta. The placenta then transports the CO2 back to the Mother via the same means. [1] This would call us to ask whether this counts as Respiration. The answer is simple. Yes. As mentioned in the criteria, respiration is not about means and ways. It’s about bringing in a gas to live, and Fetus does bring in gas. While it doesn’t ‘breathe,’ it does require and take in oxygen. It should be noted that the heart begins to beat just 10 days after implementation, during the first and second week. [2] This is around the time it’s begins receiving nutrients and oxygen from the Mother. As discussed in the prior sections, once the placenta is finished forming, the fetus begins receiving oxygen and nutrients (same as the last source). By receiving nutrient from the Mother by week 1-2, the fetus fulfills the criteria needed for Feeding. As stated, it is not a matter of means. The fetus need not eat much the same as an adult. It need only require and take in nutrients. The fetus does this via the umbilical cord.

 

Prior to conception, the two human Gametes, Sperm and Egg, each contain one pair of Chromosomes, for a total of 23 chromosomes each, or 46 pair together. During fertilization, the two sets merge, forming 23 pairs of Chromosome. After Fertilization, the diploid cell, a zygote, that is formed contains a full set of 46 human Chromosomes. [3] Even at conception, the zygote contains Genes.

It doesn't matter whether Lejune is Catholic or a Santanist, he is still creidtable source to site. Saying otherwise is like saying that we can't site John Locke on Philosophy because he's a philosopher. 

Further on my opponent states that just because something is a live doesn't mean that it's a human. However if we observe the works of John Locke we can see that he supports the right to Life. Let's look at his writtings.

" The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."

Here we can see that the government is to protect the right for humans to live and if I have proven that the fetus is indeed alive then the federal government has no choice, but to protect them. We can see that no matter what amount of them they are and even down to a single just newly fertalized egg we can see that it has aquired human rights as it is now alive and the government must protect it. Locke also shows that They must protect them perserve everything from the infant's very limb's. I have posted a video to show what actually happens in these abortion and how it violates this philosophy. 

My opponent has also dropped all the other qualifications of the fetus beings alive so I extend that across the board.

Contention 2: After Effects of Abortion

This is a huge part and though my opponent tries to disreguard it stating that it doesn't matter, but that fact is that it does matter. We are talking about huge after affects of abortion and they must not be ignored as they can highly increase the likely hood for problems later in life so I extend this across the board.

Contention 3: Life of the Mother and other cases that would warrent Abortion.

You can see that many of these things can be averted. Simply on the basis of you shouldn't have been having sex in the first place. For example let's take the usage of Condoms. Though the boxes preaches a "safety" usage of 99% in factory, we can see that the real fact is that those numbers are a lot lower, because people just simply don't know how to use condoms so the number is actually way lower than what the box states. So we can see that contraceptives aren't all that affective when put to the actual test. Now we know that rape is indeed a tricky one 

Sources for last post.

 

Sources
1. (http://www.livestrong.com...)
2. (http://www.ehd.org...)
3. (http://www.healthline.com...)
4. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)
5. (http://www.jstor.org...)
6. (http://abcnews.go.com...)
7. (http://labs.mcdb.lsa.umich.edu...)

[Greatnate]

 

-snip-

 

 

Contention 1: It's not self-aware at 24 weeks, it's viable. Human infants aren't even self-aware, that's a key developmental stage that occurs at like 18 months. No one would argue that a sleeping person isn't self-aware if they know what the words mean.

 

The fetus does not maintain homeostasis, the placenta is an organ of the mother who maintains the womb environment.

 

Contention 2: There's no clear evidence to support that abortions increase cancer risk, even if they did, why would that matter? We let people smoke, subjecting yourself to cancer risks is a human right.

 

Contention 3: That's just redefining the term abortion to exclude medically necessary abortions. It's still an aborted pregnancy, how is it not an abortion?

 

Contention 1 again, some how: The presence of DNA and RNA are not linked to the biological definition of life. Respiration is part of metabolism and so is excretion. How is feeding not metabolism again? Movement is not required in the definition of life, chemical responses to stimuli are sufficient. No one argues that blastocytes aren't alive, it's whether they should be afforded the same rights as a full grown adult. E. Coli is alive and you kill it without a second thought daily. You can cite John Locke in philosophy, but this is biology, that's really far stretch.

 

The Government is not obligated to protect all rights of living beings or even humans, the notion is to protect the rights of one individual in so far as they don't impune the rights of another. The compromise with abortion is that an adult human who can bear many children has more rights than a non-viable fetus. Two individuals exist, their rights are in conflict, and one has a clearly superior claim. The state's interest in preserving life does not extend inside of it's citizen's bodies

 

Contention 3 part 2?: Maybe use actual efficacy rates instead of cherry picking two and making a super broad statement that contraception isn't effective. The reduction in condom efficacy is mainly due to user error and other forms of birth control all rate above 99% effective.

 

 

Metabolism: Sometimes called Thermodynamics, it’s the transformation and use of energy.

 

 

This is the best line, metabolism exclusively deals with chemical energy production, while 90% thermodynamics is concerned with physical properties and not chemical composition. It's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and rivets.

[Solomon]

Self-awareness is a concept that we'll never be able to pin down enough to say it occurs X weeks into fetal development. Becoming self-aware is a process, only parts of which can be tested.

 

As with many complicated issues involving ethics, it's pointless trying to prove an argument that either end of the spectrum - the spectrum in this case being gestation - is "right" or "wrong". All it gets you to is an impasse. You make more progress when you accept that there is a conflict between the rights of the pregant woman and those of the fetus, and consider how to resolve the conflict.

[Lannan13]

Abortion should be legal world wide. Don't like it, don't do it. 

 

 

 

 

What kind of "pro life" logic is that? "Save one life today so billions can die tomorrow?" Sounds legit. 

The world isn't overpopulated. If you need me to I can go in depth on why it's not.

[Lan]

The world isn't overpopulated. If you need me to I can go in depth on why it's not.

You missed that debate.