Abortion should be legal in all instances

Krazy

I thank my opponent for starting round 1 of the debate.

First, let’s define some terms to eliminate potential confusion later on in the debate.

Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.

Pregnancy: Having a child developing in the uterus.

Legal: Permitted by law.

Murder: The killing of another person without justification or valid excuse.

Now, with that out of the way, let’s begin.

The beginning of life

According to science, once fertilization happens, the genetic makeup of the child is already complete. It’s sex, hair color, eye color, skin color, height; all of it has been determined at that moment instantly. It is a scientific fact that a new organism has been created once conception happens. This is when the new organism’s genetic code is different from the mother’s and the father’s. Since the fertilized egg has an entirely different genetic code than the mother’s, it is not part of the mother’s body. Really, no further argumentation is needed.

Some people may bring up the fact that a virus has DNA too (some do, some don’t); but here’s the deal though, the fertilized egg has human DNA. Therefore, it is a human. And it has a completely separate genetic code from his/her mother.

Here is an excerpt from AnswersinGenesis:

“In a landmark 1998 paper, researchers at the Medical College of Georgia, in Augusta, USA, found that the mammalian embryo (they worked with mice) produces a special enzyme, called indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase, or “IDO,” which suppresses the mother’s T cell reaction and allows pregnancy to proceed. Follow-up work in humans revealed the same effect, and it was also demonstrated that the IDO was produced on the embryo side of the placental membrane (which separates mother from child) and not on the mother’s side. Further work in mice showed that IDO production peaked during the formation of the placenta—the most crucial time for establishing that vital link between mother and child. And the most recent work in humans has established beyond doubt that IDO is a specific mechanism at the mother- child interface for preventing the mother’s immune system from rejecting the child.”

So what does this mean for the unborn in the context of the mother? Well, the mother’s immune system initially starts to attack the unborn as it it’s foreign. This, without a shadow of a doubt, proves that the unborn is not part of the mother’s body. It’s only because of a special enzyme produced that the baby isn’t killed.

Inconsistency

My opponent is being inconsistent. He said that a woman should have rights to her own body, implying that the unborn is part of her body. But also says that the unborn is like a virus/parasite, which is foreign (not part of the woman’s body). Well, which is it? Is it a foreign particle or part of her body?

Rebuttals

1) The main argument that my opponent used in favor of abortion is the argument of reliance. He said “A foetus cannot survive outside the womb.” First of all, thats a half-truth. The fetus can survive outside the womb after 23 weeks of pregnancy. Second of all, it’s irrelevant. Science shows that the genetic makeup of every human being is already complete at fertilization. Since the baby has a complete different genetic code than the mother and the father, then by definition, it is their child with a separate body. And with the IDO research, it’s an indisputable fact that the unborn is not part of the mother’s body. Whether or not the fetus is dependent upon the mother is irrelevant. Infants and 4 year olds are dependent upon their mothers too; but that means nothing in terms of life. Yes, the unborn are completely reliant on their mothers for nutrients, but all that proves is that they are completely reliant on their mothers for nutrients. It does not prove that they are not alive.

2) My opponent said that what if she doesn’t want to be a mother. Here’s the quote: “Why then can’t we accept the fact some people don’t want to be mothers?” If a couple doesn’t want to have a child, then they should’ve kept their legs crossed. If they don’t want a child, they shouldn’t have sex (they shouldn’t have sexual relations outside of marriage anyway and have at least some level of decency). The mother isn’t “forced to bear a child”. This makes the murderer look like the victim. The fact is, they chose to have a baby. Now, in the case of rape or incest. As horrible as it would be to be pregnant as a result of rape, murder is not the solution. Two wrongs do not make a right. It just doubles the amount of wrongs. Yes, rape is bad, but so is murder. The child should not be punished for the evil acts of his/her father. The father deserves the death penalty, not the child. And it doesn’t matter how a woman gets pregnant; genetics still prove that it’s alive regardless of how she gets pregnant.

3) My opponent said that childbirth is dangerous and abortion is safe. First of all, again, it doesn’t matter how safe abortion is if it’s murder. It could be the most safest procedure in the world, but if it’s murder, then it doesn’t matter. Genetics prove that once conception occurs, the genetic composition of the baby is instantly complete and is completely separate from the mother’s genetic code. This proves that the fertilized egg is a human being and not part of the mother’s body. So it’s irrelevant if abortion is safe. Second of all, it’s the opposite way around. Abortion is more than twice as dangerous as natural childbirth (sometimes 3x). According to a large study done in Denmark, about 500,000 women, one of the largest studies on abortion, who had first-trimester abortions (which is safer than the second or third trimesters) had significantly higher death rates compared to women who had delivered birth.

So why are there so many doctors that claim that abortions are safer? Pregnancychoices4me.org explains:

 “Abortion mortality studies in the United States are likely similarly flawed because they are based on either the voluntary submission of data on the part of abortion clinics to the Center for Disease Control, or to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood. There is no centralized collection of abortion and death history in the U.S. similar to what is found in Europe, where many countries have a nationalized health care system. The more accurate data was found by linking nearly half a million records from Denmark’s fertility and abortion registries to death registry records.”

The reality is that abortions are far more dangerous than childbirth. But again, it doesn’t matter if abortion is safe because genetics prove that the unborn is alive. ADMIN lives in New Zealand; I live in the United States of America. I don’t know anything about New Zealand, but in the USA, there have been about 58 million abortions since Roe vs Wade in 1973. Hitler’s Holocaust killed about 11 million. The USA makes Hitler look like a school bully. So if it’s really murder (which genetics prove), then it doesn’t matter how “safe” abortion is. It’s obviously not safe for the unborn children.

4) My opponent said that if abortion is illegal, people would just do it illegally; so he argues that that’s the reason it should be legal. But that’s not a coherent argument. Let’s just apply that same principle to other crimes, such as murder of people after-birth. Murder of people after they are born is illegal. But people do it anyway. Therefore, lets make murder legal. No, that’s absurd. Stealing is illegal; people still steal. But that’s not a reason though to make stealing legal. If we make rape illegal, people will rape anyway; does that mean we should make rape legal? Of course not. And likewise, people will do abortions if it’s illegal, that’s true; but that is not a reason to make it legal. The fact that there are crimes is not an excuse for lawlessness.

Final statements/Summary

My opponent never stated when life began. Question for my opponent: If life doesn’t begin at conception, when does it begin? Although genetics prove that it begins at conception, the point is that my opponent never said when life began, which is an essential part of the debate.

I’m going to offer a comparison. Most abortions (about 99%) in the world are done simply for the convenience of not having a child, financially unable, or rape (none of which are justifications for murder). Less than one tenth of one percent of all abortions in the world are done when the mother’s life is in critical danger. Now with that said, some mothers choose not to have an abortion when they know full well that they will die in birth or soon after birth in a selfless act. So we have one woman who has an abortion just out of convenience of not having a child. Then we have another woman who, knowing she will die sufferably, decides to not have an abortion and save her unborn child. Of course, that’s not necessary. Self defense is always justifiable. But it just shows that these 2 women are completely different people. And it shows their inner character.

Most of my opponent’s arguments are entirely based on circular reasoning that the unborn is not alive. He said that some women don’t want to be mothers. Well, that’s not a reason for murder. He claimed that it’s safe. First of all, that’s false. Second of all, it doesn’t justify murder. He said that people will do abortions anyway if it’s illegal. Okay, but that doesn’t justify murder just because people do it illegally. And the argument of reliance is a red herring. On top of all that, he never argued when life begun. This whole debate is about whether the unborn is alive. Because if it is alive (which genetics prove), then abortion should be illegal since it is murder (except for the less than 0.01% of cases that the mother’s life is in danger).

The resolution is “Abortion should be legal in all instances”. The resolution is not “Abortion should be legal in some instances”. I agree with the latter. There are indeed, the less than 0.01% of cases that the mother’s life is in danger. But for the vast majority, abortion is treated as if the unborn is not alive. And that’s the center of the debate. If we consider the unborn to be alive, then it is only logical that most abortions should be outlawed; since it is the killing of a human life.

With all that said, I am looking forward to my opponent’s future rebuttals and arguments in his next post.

Sources

(of excerpt, AIG)

Williams, Alexander. "Abortion Argument Unravels." Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis, 1 Sept. 2005. Web. 22 May 2015. <https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/abortion/abortion-argument-unravels/>.

(in excerpt, AIG)

Munn, D.H. et al., Prevention of allogeneic fetal rejection by tryptophan catabolism, Science 281(5380):1122–1124, 1998.

Kudo, Y. and Boyd, C.A., Human placental indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase: cellular localization and characterization of an enzyme preventing fetal rejection, Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1500(1):119–124, 2000.

Suzuki, S. et al., Expression of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase and tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase in early concepti, Biochem. J. 355(2):425–429, 2001.

Kudo, Y. et al., Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase: distribution and function in the developing human placenta, J. Reprod. Immunol. 61(2):87–98, 2004.

(of excerpt, WCCLG)

"Abortion Is Much More Dangerous than Childbirth, Major Danish Study Finds." Abortion Choices LaGrange Womens Care Center Of La Grange RSS. Woman's Care Center of La Grange, n.d. Web. 22 May 2015. <http:// www.pregnancychoices4me.org/abortion-is-much-more-dangerous-than-childbirth-major-danish-study-finds/>.

Krazy

Thank you for starting round 2.

First of all, my apologies that the picture failed to upload; or me not uploading it correctly. I’ll try to explain the picture the best way I can. Or, the admin/viewers/judges can type in the URL of WCCLG (the URL is in the MLA citation in the sources at the bottom of my post in round 1) to view the graph on the website where it came from.

It was a graph titled “Annual Mortality Rates Following First Pregnancy Outcome During Each of First Ten Years Following Pregnancy Outcome.” On the x-axis, was the amount of years, the origin being 0 while the end being 10. The y-axis was the deaths per 100,000, the origin being 0, while the top being 80. There were 2 lines on the graph; one being “birth” and the other “abortion”. The “birth” line was along, on average, the “20” of the y-axis. The “abortion” line was along, on average, the “50” or “60” of the y-axis. This means that abortion produced a fatality rate of that nearly 3 times that of natural childbirth over the course of ten years after the abortions were done on the mothers.

Now, back to the debate.

The opposing side said “Until the moment of birth, a foetus is totally reliant on its mother, and therefore part of her body and governed by her natural rights.” But why? How does reliance determine life? People are reliant on other people all the time. That doesn’t prove anything. Genetics mark the beginning of something. All of the cells in every person’s body came from one single cell, which that was the fertilized egg cell: the combination of the mother’s egg and the father’s sperm. It has a completely different genetic code different from the mother and the father, so it isn’t part of the mother’s body. The opposing side proposes that the fertilized egg is part of the mother’s body, but the truth is, genetics determine which cells are yours. And since the fertilized egg has a completely different genetic code, that logically means that it’s not part of the mother’s body.

The opposing side stated “If I took a DNA sample from a criminal, would that DNA sample have rights too?” The opposing side either 1) doesn’t understand my argument or 2) understands it, but is intentionally misrepresenting my position in a straw man. I never said that DNA itself is a person. I argued that the fertilized egg has half the DNA from the mother and the father, and that the genetic makeup of the fertilized egg has a completely different genetic code from the mother and the father, which proves that it’s not part of the mother, so it is a person.

The opposing side said “Blood has different DNA from every other cell in your body.” While true, all cells in the body that have a nucleus have the exact same DNA, except gametes of course. Now, even though RBC DNA is a bit different, they’re still your cells. They aren’t so different that it qualifies to be another person’s DNA, they’re just different enough to be a different cell to play another role, which isn’t that much of a change. Also, every single cell, including RBCs, come from the exact same source: the fertilized egg. Not the mother, because she has a completely different code of DNA than the fertilized egg. Which proves my point: the fertilized egg is not part of the mother’s body, which the opposing side claims it is.

The opposing side said “If anything else in the body creates an immunosupprssive effect - such as, I don’t know, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus - that doesn’t mean the virus has protections under natural law.” Here’s the difference though. When the father’s sperm and the mother’s egg unite, it doesn’t create a virus. It creates the fertilized egg, which has a completely different genetic code from the mother and the father. If my opponent’s argument is that the fetus is part of the mother’s body, then genetics disproves that by showing that the fertilized egg has a separate genetic code.

The opposing side goes on to argue about premature births at 24 weeks; but this is completely irrelevant (which I said in round 1). Whether or not it’s a premature birth does not negate the fact that the fetus has a completely different set code of DNA from the mother (or the father).

Inconsistency

The opposing side’s main argument for abortion is that the fetus is totally reliant on it’s mother’s nutrients; therefore it’s not alive. But again, why? Yes, the unborn are completely and utterly dependent on the mother for survival; but all that proves is that the unborn are completely and utterly dependent on the mother for survival. It does not prove that the unborn is not alive. Again, the opposing side’s arguments are very inconsistent. The opposing side claimed repeatedly that the unborn is part of the mother’s body; but likened it to a virus, which isn’t part of the mother’s body—it’s foreign. That’s why the immune system tries to attack it (given that there isn’t some kind of disorder and attacks it’s own cells). And since, especially with the IDO research, the immune system initially tries to attack the unborn once it’s recognized. That proves beyond without a shadow of a doubt that the unborn is not part of the mother’s body. But saying that the fetus is part of the mother’s body but saying it’s a virus at the same time is inconsistent.

Ad hominem

The opposing side said “My opponent mocks people…” First of all, that’s an ad hominem personal attack. Whether or not I am “mocking” somebody has no relevance to whether the unborn is alive or not, which is what I’m trying to argue. The only times when I don’t argue when the unborn is alive is at my rebuttals of the opposing side’s already irrelevant arguments (such as the “safety” of abortion). The definition of an ad hominem is attacking the opponent’s motives or character rather than the position they maintain. The opposing side is attacking my motives by claiming that I mock people. Second of all, I’m not mocking anybody. If it came off that way, I’m sorry; but that wasn’t at all my intentions. Attack my arguments, not me personally, please.

Rebuttals (continued)

The opposing side claimed that some of my arguments are presupposing murder. It’s not an assumption, it’s a scientific fact. Again, once the father’s sperm and the mother’s egg unite, it’s genetic makeup is already complete. It’s hair color, eye color, skin color, sex, height, and everything else has already been determined right at that moment. It’s no more human than a grown adult. The opposing side’s argument is that it’s part of the mother’s body, but genetics disprove that assertion, as explained earlier. Again, the opposing side is being inconsistent in saying that the fertilized egg cell and up is part of the mother’s body, while comparing it to a virus, which is not part of the human body. It doesn’t have human DNA.

The opposing side said “Second, the mother didn’t choose to have a child. AT BEST, the mother chose to have sex.” Okay, but the couple knows full well that they could have a child. Sex always has that possibility; and the couple know it. They know that they could have a child, and they choose to have sex anyway. So they shouldn’t be utterly shocked that the girlfriend is pregnant, and then go to an abortion clinic to have it killed. And besides, this is totally irrelevant to whether the unborn is alive.

The opposing side said “And to live with this creature that constantly reminds them of what was quite possibly a traumatic moment in their lives.” Children should be viewed as a gift, not a burden. How does being a result of rape lessen the value of that person? It doesn’t justify murder.

The opposing side argued in extensive detail about the “safety” of abortion. This whole argument is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how safe abortion is for the mother (what about the child?). The point is, if it’s murder, abortion shouldn’t be done at all (except in self-defense when the mother’s life is in danger because of the fetus). Self-defense is always justifiable. This argument is both irrelevant and circular reasoning. It assumes that the unborn is not alive (which genetics disprove). The opposing side argued extensively about the Denmark study, but that is completely irrelevant if abortion is murder. I only talked about it in round 1 because the opposing side brought up the already irrelevant claim that it’s “safe”. But the truth is that it doesn’t matter if it’s “safe” if abortion is killing an alive human being. The whole argument is a red herring. Even if they (WCCLG) are wrong in the interpretation of the study, it has no relevance. Genetics still prove that the unborn is living. The zygote that is formed at fertilization is different from all other cells in the mother’s (or father’s) body and it has a completely new and unique set of genes as it grows.

The opposing side stated “…which basically disproves con’s hypothesis as well, that almost all abortions happen out of pure convenience”. It’s not a hypothesis, it’s a statistical fact. Less than one-tenth of one percent of all abortions in the entire world are done because of the mother’s life being in danger. The rest are either: unready for responsibility, can’t afford the baby, too immature or young, rape or incest (which is 1%), will alter couple’s relationship, etc. None of these are valid excuses for murder.

The opposing side said “There is an inherent problem if these create perverse incentives for populations to kill themselves, as we saw in Romania.” Nobody is forcing anyone to commit suicide. If somebody murders themselves (which is what suicide is—self-murder), then that’s their own fault. Honestly, it’s hard to see the logic in the opposing side’s argument. So because people murder themselves, let’s let them murder their children. Um, what? That doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t matter if people commit suicide; the unborn is still living regardless. Since the genetic code of the zygote is completely different from the mother, it isn’t part of the mother’s body. The opposing side also said “…where severe abortion restrictions were directly responsible for the deaths of at least 9000 women, and no noticeable birth rate increase.” No, women committing suicide were directly responsible for the deaths of at least 9000 women. Actually, it’s double that, since the women were pregnant and they actually took other people’s lives—their own children. This is not a justification for abortion where they can just murder their children alone. The opposing side’s argument is entirely circular. While genetics prove that the unborn is alive, the argument that people will commit suicide if it’s illegal is assuming that the unborn is not living.

Ad hominem

The opposing side said “…(or other issues con is apparently unsympathetic towards). I for one have a lot of respect for a women…” I’m just going to skip over the fact that it’s another ad hominem personal attack from my opponent. Saying that I’m unsympathetic is appealing to my character traits, which is not part of the debate. I’m sympathetic towards victims of murder. That’s the reason I want abortion to be illegal in most instances.

Question

The opposing side never answered my question in round 1 that if the fetus is a foreign particle (virus) or part of her body. Whether or not that’s intentional, it doesn’t matter. It remains unanswered.

I look forward to the opposing side’s arguments.

Krazy

I thank my opponent for starting round 3. This has been really fun.

First of all, let’s address a scientific error that both me and my opponent made. He said in round 2 "Blood has different DNA from every other cell in your body.” That’s just not true. All cells in your body have the exact same DNA (except gametes; they have half). Red blood cells don’t have DNA because they don’t have a nucleus—the blood DNA comes from the white blood cells. But it’s still the same DNA as any other cell that has a nucleus. At first, I agreed with my opponent that blood has different DNA, but upon further research, it turns out it’s not true. No matter what the cell, it has the exact same DNA. It was my opponent’s wrong for bringing up the claim; and it was my wrong to agree with it. There may be some pseudoscientific articles that claim that some cells have different DNA, but really, it’s a scientific fact that all cells with nuclei have the same DNA (except gametes).

The unborn is not part of the mother’s body

My opponent, since round 1, claimed that the unborn is part of the mother’s body but also compared it to a virus. Ultimately, he said that it’s part of the mother’s body and not a foreign particle—“The point I was trying to make was that a child is not a foreign particle - it is part of its mother’s body (think fingernails).”. He says that it’s not foreign. Well, when the body detects something foreign, it tries to attack it. It just so happens that that’s exactly what the body does to the unborn, proving that the unborn is foreign. This falsifies my opponent’s claim that the unborn is part of the mother’s body. The fact is that the unborn puts up a defense against the mother’s T-cells that are trying to reject it.

Once the mother’s body detects the unborn as present, it automatically tries to reject it and attack it. It tries to kill it because it’s foreign. This is the cause of so many miscarriages too, if the unborn’s defense mechanism fails. It’s only because of a special enzyme the unborn produces that suppresses the mother’s T-cell reaction with indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) that allows the pregnancy to continue in this foreign body. And this enzyme is only produced in pregnancy.

And thus, the unborn is not part of the mother’s body. And thus, abortion is murder. And thus, abortion should be illegal. The resolution is negated. Really, no further argumentation is needed.

Life begins at conception

Once the egg and sperm unite, it becomes a person. This is because everything about your characteristics is determined at this one moment. Your sex, height, skin color, eye color, hair color, and everything else is determined at one instant. It isn’t more human than a grown adult. My opponent says that life begins at birth—“A baby that has been birthed on the other hand, can survive. Birth makes the difference.”. If life begins at birth, then what happens when the baby is half-way through the birth canal? Does this mean they’re half-human? Anybody who believes that life begins at birth are stuck in the very embarrassing position that there are different “levels” of humanity. Somebody could say, “This person is 50% human because he is 50% away from the birth canal. This person is 34.583% human because that’s how far away he is from the birth canal.”. That’s ridiculous. You are either 100% human or you’re 0% human. There is no middle position. The same thing applies to life. The beginning of life needs to be instantaneous to avoid different “levels” of humanity. Birth is not instantaneous; it takes a minute. Conception, however, is instantaneous. That’s why life begins at conception. Also, when the sperm and the egg unite, the genetic structure is complete. The DNA is accounted for and is completely different from the mother’s body. That’s a scientific fact. Science and common sense prove that life begins at conception. The beginning of life needs to be instantaneous because if it weren’t, then we would be stuck in the extremely embarrassing belief that the are different “stages” of humans. Different “levels” of humans. This is absurd and is why life needs to begin instantaneously. My opponent claims life begins at birth, but that takes a minute. It’s not instant. Conception is. Plus, since all of your cells stem from the fertilized egg, that’s when you became into existence. Science (and common sense) prove that life begins at conception.

Reliance/survival

My opponent argues that the unborn is completely reliant on the mother. That’s true. But how does that prove that the unborn is part of the mother’s body? The fact is, it doesn’t. As shown with genetics and IDO, it clearly shows that the unborn is not part of the mother’s body. Yes, the unborn is completely reliant on the mother for survival; but all that proves is that the unborn is completely reliant on the mother for survival. It does not prove that the unborn is part of her body; and it doesn’t prove that the unborn is not alive.

My opponent said that reliance determines life. Infants are reliant on their parents for survival. Does this mean that they aren’t alive? Of course not. My opponent said in round 2 that it’s a different form of reliance. But they’re still “reliant” aren’t they? Yes, they are. Infants are completely reliant on their parents for survival. If anybody disagrees, then throw an infant onto the street and see how long they survive. Now, does this mean that infants aren’t alive? No, of course not. The same applies to 4 year olds or the unborn. The argument of reliance is a complete red herring. Again, the mother’s immune system initially attacks the unborn BECAUSE IT IS FOREIGN. My opponent keeps on arguing that the unborn is part of her body. If that were true, then her body wouldn’t recognize it as foreign.

Krazy

I thank my opponent for starting round 4.

Scientific error

The opposing side stated, “He has simply asserted throughout the debate that DNA is uniform throughout the human body, while I have provided a reputable scientific source providing this is not the case.” About that source, here’s what it actually says:

“AAA is one of the rare vascular diseases where tissue samples are removed as part of patient therapy. When they compared them, the researchers discovered major differences between BAK genes in blood cells and tissue cells coming from the same individuals, with the suspected disease "trigger" residing only in the tissue. Moreover, the same differences were later evident in samples derived from healthy individuals.”

Notice that it’s not too clear that the genes were different, or that the gene expression was different. Different genes are active in different kinds of cells. The article doesn’t explicitly make it clear if the study meant that the genes were different or gene expression was different. When they say “…major differences between BAK genes…” they could mean or imply expression. The DNA is the same, but gene expression is different in each cell. That, is a scientific fact backed by decades of genetic research. For example, Judith Miller, M.S., says:

“All the cells in a person's body have the same DNA and the same genes. However, the difference between cells in different tissues and organs is that the "expression" of the genes differs between cells. Expression means that the message from the DNA is being copied and made into protein. For example, liver cells have different proteins than skin cells, even though their DNA is the same.”

Source: https://www.genome.gov/DNADay/q.cfm?aid=153&year=2009

But even IF the DNA was different in each cell, they all come from the same cell - the fertilized egg. This means that all of the cells are still yours - because of how they all originated. All of the cells that each person has ultimately come from the fertilized egg cell. This still proves that that was your beginning. The beginning of each person is when all of their cells originate. Now, what could be the one originating cell? That, would be the fertilized egg cell. That cell is special because that is where ultimately every single other cell of the human body originates. So that is when each person begins their existence - or life. Each person’s existence begins from the one cell in which all of their cells originate. And since that is the fertilized egg cell, that is where life begins.

So the opposing side argues that blood has different DNA. First, that’s false. Second, it ultimately wouldn’t matter IF it did. Where did the blood come from, or any other cell for that matter? Ultimately, that is the fertilized egg, so that is when human existence begins, and therefore life. Which is what I’ve been saying all along.

The opposing side stated, “Pro confuses his own stance plenty however.” Well, given that HE IS PRO, I would agree. However, I’m pretty sure he meant to say “con”. Nevertheless, I’m not confusing my position. He brought up the existence of chimerism in the previous round - but that is completely irrelevant. Chimerism doesn’t support pro’s position. Chimerism is a disorder in which two fertilized eggs fused together at an embryonic stage. Both DNA profiles are unique - but BOTH of them are still different from the mother. It doesn’t matter if a chimera has two entirely different genomes. The chimera could have a thousand different genomes. But all of them are still different from the mother’s genome, which makes it not part of her body. And the beginning of human existence starts at the fertilized egg, since that is where all of your cells originate.

The opposing side stated, “In short, in this round, pro has been consistent only in his inconsistency…” Again, I hope he isn’t trying to argue against himself. But I’m 99% certain that he meant to say “con”. It’s not inconsistency. Since round 1, I have shown that genetics and IDO prove that the unborn is alive and is it’s own body; and there hasn’t been a rational rebuttal to it since.

The beginning of life/The unborn is not part of the mother’s body

The opposing side stated that the unborn doesn’t produce IDO. Yes it does. That’s what the source states. It says, “Just as the embryo produces IDO to protect itself from the mother’s immune system…”. It also says “…found that the mammalian embryo (they worked with mice) produces a special enzyme…”. So the embryo does produce it. Technically speaking, it’s the embryo’s side of the placenta but it’s synonymous. Arguing a technicality such as this is like me saying that I picked up a book, and then somebody says “You didn’t pick up that book, your hand did.” Um, okay, that IS true. And likewise; yes, the embryo’s side of the placenta produces it. The embryo’s side of the placenta produces IDO. It’s on the embryo’s side and that’s the point. And it produces IDO that prevents the mother’s immune system from killing the unborn. That still proves that the unborn is not part of the mother’s body, as I have said before. Really, the debate was already settled since round 1. The unborn IS foreign. So it is murder to kill the unborn child. So it should be illegal.

Source: https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/abortion/abortion-argument-unravels/

The opposing side stated, “…foreign matter doesn’t inherently have natural rights.” If the unborn is not part of the mother’s body, then who’s body is it? It’s the child’s. After all, that IS the definition of pregnancy, a child developing in the uterus (see round 1 definitions). A lot of people say that the mother should have rights to her body; but the thing is, it isn’t part of her body. It’s called pregnancy. The definition of pregnancy is a child developing in the uterus. So if the unborn isn’t part of the mother’s body, who’s body is it a part of? It’s the unborn’s body.

The opposing side stated, “…Since con is big on T-cells, I’m sure he’s aware of one of the biggest classes of T-cells, the Regulatory T-cells, which exist specifically for the same reason - to protect the human body from itself.” This isn’t really a rebuttal. It’s more like a description. Naming off different kinds of T-cells and their functions is not an argument. The fact still stands that the unborn produces IDO, which prevents the mother’s immune system from killing it. And the phrase, “…to protect the human body from itself.” is essentially false. The immune system, unless there is some freak disorder, protects the body - not attack it. The mother’s immune system tries to attack/reject the unborn because it is foreign. This principle is also why some organ transplants fail, it’s because the body doesn’t recognize it as it’s own. It’s only when the immune system is weakened with immunosuppresents that will allow the transplant to take place. The same thing happens with every normal pregnancy. As with a foreign organ, once fertilization happens, a foreign embryo appears and the immune system tries to attack and reject it until it is weakened with IDO.

The opposing side stated, “The production of IDO caused by many viruses and cancer, for example, does not mean they should be treated as humans.” This argument is irrelevant. First of all, what does this have to do with the fertilized egg? It’s a false analogy. Second of all, viruses are not alive. Also, they did not come from the father’s sperm and the mother’s egg. Third of all, even though normal human cells can turn cancerous, they all still came from the same fertilized egg - the cell where all of the cells originate. Since all of the cells originate here, this is where human existence comes into being. This is common sense. This is also where the person’s genetic makeup is complete, so it’s entirely separate from the mother, as said before. This also proves that it’s separate from the mother’s body.

My opponent essentially did not answer my question directly. If life begins at birth, what happens if the child is half-way through the birth canal? Does that mean it’s half-human? Different stages of humanity is an embarrassing position to take. All humans are created equal in value and worth. So there is no middle position of humanity. My opponent said that once the baby respires, life begins. Then what happens when it takes a mini-breath, but not a complete one? Ultimately, it doesn’t make any sense. Conception is essentially instantaneous, so we can believe that all humans are created equal.

Reliance

My opponent argues that the unborn are reliant, so therefore (so the argument goes) they aren’t alive. But he has not responded to my rebuttal since round 1 of this debate: Yes, the unborn are reliant on their mothers, but all that proves that the unborn are reliant on their mothers. It does not prove that the unborn is not alive. Where is the connection? I have said this since round 1, and I will keep saying it until a rebuttal is offered. It has not been answered nor explained why this makes them non-alive. It has not been answered why reliance determines life. Other people are reliant on other people all the time, this proves nothing. The opposing side claims that this is another form of reliance, but they’re still “reliant”, aren’t they? Of course they are. Does this mean they’re dead? No.

My opponent stated “…an infant is not reliant on their parents.” Not always, but pro said that reliance determines life. Since infants have to be reliant on somebody (not their parents necessarily) to survive, they must be dead. This is absurd. My opponent keeps claiming that it’s a different type of reliance, but the fact of the matter is they are still “reliant”. Just because they’re “more’ reliant proves nothing. The unborn are more reliant than infants, but how does this prove that they’re not alive? It doesn’t. Infants are more reliant than adults. Does this mean that infants are not alive? Of course not. And the unborn are more reliant than infants. Just because they are “more” reliant than some other age group, that does not prove anything.

My opponent stated “If the relationship holds true for everything else, then the onus is on con to show why a fetus would be the exception to the rule, and con has not done so.” That’s a bit of a double standard. Pro has the onus of proving why reliance determines life only for fetuses and not everything else (like infants or the elderly). Why is it that when the elderly and infants are reliant, they’re alive; however, when the unborn are reliant, they’re not alive? That’s inconsistent and contradictory. I have simply shown that reliance does not determine life.

Human vs person vs life

My opponent stated “I don’t really want to get into a semantics battle…” I do.

Person: (1) A human being regarded as an individual.

Human: (1) Of, relating to, or characteristic of people or human beings.

Life: (3) The period between birth and death of a living thing, esp. a human being.

Birth: (2) The beginning or coming into existence of something.

Note: All definitions were courtesy of New Oxford American Dictionary

My opponent stated that a person is a “conscious individual identity”. So when somebody is in a coma (unconscious), they aren’t a person? That doesn’t make any sense. A dog has a “conscious individual identity”. They’re aware of their surroundings. That doesn’t mean that dogs are people. My opponent stated that a human is a “description of a type of animal”. That’s false. Humans are not animals. A major differentiating factor that sets humans from animals is that we have a moral consciousness; animals do not. My opponent stated that life is a “broad description for biological behavior”. That depends on the definition of “alive”. Trees are “alive”, but they aren’t “alive” in the sense that you and I are.

My opponent stated “Me and you are different persons” Yes, but we are both people. And we are both human. They are the same thing. Yes, we are different people; but we are also different humans. So it’s suffice to say that we are both people and both human.

Social issues

My opponent stated “Ironically, con claims all my points are based on circular reasoning, but rather than showing why that would be the case he proceeds to produce an entirely different set of rebuttals that are themselves all examples of circular reasoning.” My rebuttals weren’t centered on circular reasoning. Since round 1, I have already shown that genetics and IDO have proven that the unborn is not part of the mother’s body and is alive. So it isn't circular reasoning. And therefore it is murder and thus should be illegal. But my opponent’s argument of reliance means nothing. Reliance does not prove anything except that they are reliant. Nothing more, nothing less.

Moral imperative

Pro stated “As such I strongly disagree that abortion should be illegal even if it did kill a real person.” That is moral absurdity. Murder should be illegal. End of story. Period.

Pro stated “…a human being is not legal obligated to help another person under normal circumstances…” Yes but you ARE obligated not to kill them. The point is, genetics and IDO still prove that the unborn is not part of the mother’s body and is alive.

Pro stated “Many people have many wants. Con is not the divine arbiter of which wants are morally valid and which are not.” If I’m not the divine arbiter, neither is pro. I never claimed to be the divine arbiter; but I’m just saying, if I’m not the divine arbiter, neither is he. The divine arbiter is God. The point is, yes, many people have many wants; but not all of those wants are right. If I’m not the divine arbiter in saying that abortion is wrong, then pro is not the divine arbiter either in saying that abortion is right. That is a two-sided street.

Pro stated “I’ve already proven logically how even what con calls “convenience” abortions maximize human life”. Murdering people does not maximize human life. It doesn’t matter if the murdering is convenient also.

Role of the state

Pro stated “…but I’d still like him to engage at this later stage in the debate.” I thought that if abortion is murder, then the role of the state doesn’t need to be argued. But for pro’s satisfaction, I’ll rebut it anyway.

Okay here’s the thing, abortion has already proven to be killing a person. The Roe v Wade decision on privacy is entirely based on circular reasoning. They say that abortion is a private matter. Well, if it’s murder, then it’s not the parent’s “private matter”. It’s child sacrifice, not a private matter.

Pro stated “States should abstain from regulating private health matters and choices that pertain only to the individual in a blanket fashion, without any due consideration or process for the individual costs and benefits of pursuing the matter for that person.” Which “person” does pro mean? The parent’s, or the unborn? Again, I have already shown that abortion is murder since round 1. It’s not a private matter if it’s murder.

Statistic

Pro stated “He pulled this statistic out of thin air.” Here’s the source: http://www.gotquestions.org/abortion-Bible.html

It states:

“The second argument that usually arises against the Christian stance on abortion is “What about when the life of the mother is at risk?” Honestly, this is the most difficult question to answer on the issue of abortion. First, let’s remember that this situation is the reason behind less than one-tenth of one percent of the abortions done in the world today. Far more women have an abortion for convenience than women who have an abortion to save their own lives…Over 95 percent of the abortions performed today involve women who simply do not want to have a baby. Less than 5 percent of abortions are for the reasons of rape, incest, or the mother's health at risk. Even in the more difficult 5 percent of instances, abortion should never be the first option.”

Here is another source, giving a comprehensive list of all the reasons why women have abortions: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

Here is the list:

Having a baby would dramatically change my life (74%)

Would interfere with education (38%)

Would interfere with job/employment/career (38%)

Have other children or dependents (32%)

Can’t afford a baby now (73%)

Unmarried (42%)

Student or planning to study (34%)

Can’t afford a baby and child care (28%)

Can’t afford the basic needs of life (23%)

Unemployed (22%)

Can’t leave job to take care of a baby (21%)

Would have to find a new place to live (19%)

Not enough support from husband or partner (14%)

Husband or partner is unemployed (12%)

Currently or temporarily on welfare or public assistance (8%)

Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems (48%)

Not sure about relationship (19%)

Partner and I can’t or don’t want to get married (12%)

Not in a relationship right now (11%)

Relationship or marriage may break up soon (11%)

Husband or partner is abusive to me or my children (2%)

Have completed my childbearing (38%)

Not ready for a(nother) child (32%)

Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant (25%)

Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child (22%)

Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion (14%)

Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus (13%)

Physical problem with my health (12%)

Parents want me to have an abortion (6%)

Was a victim of rape (1%)

Became pregnant as a result of incest (<0.5%)

There is the reason of “Physical problem with my health” but that is not the same thing as “Life being in critical danger”. Those are two completely different realities. So where is the statistic of abortions happening because the mother’s life is in danger? They have over 30 reasons, where is “life being in critical danger”? Well the fact of the matter is, that reason is so small, that it’s not even recognizable in the study. The reason of rape or incest, according to this study, is the least common reason - at about 1%. Reasonably speaking, the reason of life being in danger is even lower than rape or incest. So it’s not even recognizable. If it were, they would have listed it.

Safety

Pro stated “Even if abortion is not safe for the fetus, both my opponent and I figure the mother’s life is more important to protect.” Yes, if her life is in danger, which is responsible for less than one tenth of one percent of all abortions done in the entire world today. The rest, are murder. Pro said “Even if abortion is not safe for the fetus…” What does he mean “even if”? Abortion is obviously not safe for the fetus. The definition of abortion is killing the unborn. Abortion kills the fetus, of course it’s not safe for the unborn.

Pro stated “My point about safety, however, mostly concerned the safety of those who are forced to endure unsafe abortions because the government was foolish enough to make abortion illegal.” Nobody is “forced” to have an abortion. They have the choice to buckle up, take responsibility, and take care of the child. If they do a back-alley abortion, that’s their own choice. Usually, pro-choicers are obsessed with the word “choice”. Well, this right here is ALL ABOUT choice. Personal responsibility - that’s what it’s called. They need to take personal accountability for what they’ve done (have sex) and deal with the consequences (have child). If people accidentally kill themselves trying to murder somebody, that’s THEIR FAULT. If they die trying to murder the innocent, they deserve it. Nobody should try to murder the innocent. Just because people kill themselves accidentally, that doesn’t mean the government should make murder legal. What is the logical connection in that? It doesn’t make any sense.

Pro stated “These deaths are meaningless and terrible and painful.” Again, the murderers chose to do a back-alley abortion. If they die trying to murder somebody, that’s their own fault and they deserve it. Murder of innocent children is what’s “terrible”.

Pro stated “Experience has shown time and time again that you do not in any way disincentivise abortion by making it illegal.” Again, as said before, if murderers die trying to murder the innocent, that’s their own fault and they deserve it. Murderers of innocent children deserve to die. Pro said “People still do abortion just as much.” Here’s the difference though, justice was served when it was illegal, as I will explain later under “deserved penalties”.

Pro stated “Many women would rather die than have a child at their particular age and stage…” Well then they should have thought about this a little bit more before engaging in the act that gives them a child. It only takes once. If they “rather die” than take care of their own children, then maybe they should’ve thought about this a little bit harder before having sex.

Deserved penalties

Pro asks how justice was served three times. For each time, there is the same answer. Justice was served by indirectly eliminating murderers from society. If people murder innocent children, they already have a depraved mind. If their minds are so debased that they ruthlessly and heartlessly murder innocent little children - the most helpless human beings, then that means that it wouldn’t phase them in murdering adults as well. Because murdering innocent children is worse than murdering adults.

When abortion is illegal, murderers accidentally kill themselves, as pro admitted. That is a good thing. Consider these two scenarios:

1) Abortion is legal: Only the innocent are killed - the unborn children.

2) Abortion is illegal: The innocent are killed AND the murderers. That is a benefit. We can do without murderers in society. The less the murderers, the better.

Pro stated “…but I will say that the minimization of deaths is beneficial for any society.” It depends on “who’s” deaths that pro talks about. The less murderers in society, the better. Which is another reason why abortion should be illegal in most instances.

Pro stated “And I’d much rather we learn how to best forgive…” So we should make murder legal and let murderers go in the name of “forgiveness”? First of all, letting murderers go in the name of “forgiveness” is not true forgiveness. Second of all, it’s not justice either. No justice is being done when abortion is legal. The murderers are sent free. And of course, murderers can be forgiven by God, that’s between them and Him. But concerning the criminal justice system, murderers should be punished in society.

Pro stated “Given that con’s whole case is centered on the value of the preservation of life, it’s contradictory to now be saying that he’s happy to throw away life in the meaningless name of ‘justice’.” Justice is not meaningless. Justice needs to be served no matter what. And justice also applies to murder. The fact is, when abortion is illegal, as pro admitted himself, the murderers die trying to murder the innocent. This is a good thing. The less murderers in society, the better.

Pro stated “Even if abortion was murder, two wrongs don’t make a right, and supplementing those murders with even more won’t fix society.” Now pro is being inconsistent. He said earlier that the mothers die in the process trying to kill their own children. If that’s the case, then nobody is murdering the mothers, they accidentally kill themselves when abortion is illegal, as pro stated earlier. But now he is saying that the mothers are being murdered by somebody/something else. This is very inconsistent and self-contradicting.

Pro constantly says that if abortion is illegal, people will just do back-alley abortions and die in the process with the unborn. But here is the solution: They won’t die if they don’t do abortions.

I look forward to the opposing side’s responses.

Krazy

I thank my opponent for this enjoyable debate. This has been interesting.

I could post new arguments, but since my opponent is pro and this is the last round, it might not be entirely fair. So I’ll just recapitulate my points and summarize them as succinctly as possible. As well as rebut my opponent’s new arguments.

Abortion is murder

It is a scientific fact that abortion is killing an alive human being. IDO is produced for the unborn because it is foreign, otherwise, the mother’s immune system would kill him/her. My opponent says that the embryo’s side of the placenta produces it for the unborn. Great, this is proof that the mother’s body distinguishes the unborn as foreign. Now, if it’s not part of the mother’s body, whose body is it a part of? It’s the unborn’s body, hence the term “pregnancy”. Logic demands it.

Once conception takes place, your genetic makeup is already complete. That includes your hair color, eye color, skin color, sex, height, and everything else. It all takes place in this one moment; and this is where all of your cells originate at this one location. So it makes sense that this is where life begins. This proves that life begins at conception. And also, the fact of the matter is, the unborn’s DNA is different from the mother’s DNA, which proves that the unborn is not part of the mother’s body and is her child. This point has not been logically refuted. So if the unborn’s DNA is not part of the mother’s DNA, whose DNA is it a part of? It’s the unborn’s DNA, obviously. Which means that the unborn is it’s own body. In refutation of this, my opponent brought up the existence of twins. He argues that since twins have the same DNA (I’m assuming he means identical, not fraternal), they must be the same person under my position so therefore life doesn’t begin at conception. Identical twins come from one fertilized egg that splits in two. That’s the reason for the “identical” DNA. But this point of existence of identical twins can easily be refuted by the existence of conjoined twins, a condition in which the egg doesn’t split completely but they’re obviously different people, meaning that life/personhood cannot be granted after twinning. This confirms that life begins at conception. So my opponent attempts to refute the conception/DNA position by bringing up the existence of identical twins. But this refutation is refuted by the existence of conjoined twins. So life still begins at conception, scientifically. And besides, both of the twins’ DNA is still different from the mother, again proving my point: The unborn is not part of the mother’s body.

My opponent said that we have to discount any source that states that each person has the same DNA uniformly because some people are chimeras. But this logic does not follow. Chimerism is a disorder. A very rare one too. Under normal circumstances, people do have the same DNA and the same genes. And both of the chimera’s DNA profiles are still different from the mother’s proving that the unborn, chimera or not, is still alive.

This is important: Even if genetics and IDO doesn't prove that the unborn is not part of the mother’s body and is alive, that doesn’t mean that birth determines life. If reliance determines life, then the elderly or infants or people on life support must not be alive. My opponent says that this is a different sense of reliance, but the fact of the matter is, they are still “reliant”, which my opponent says determines life. The fact that the unborn are completely reliant on their mothers for survival only proves that the unborn are completely reliant on their mothers for survival. My opponent has never established the connection of why this means that the unborn is not alive or not a person. So even if the genetics and IDO arguments are discounted, my opponent has never logically argued his own position of why life/personhood begins at birth. So even if genetics and IDO didn’t prove that the unborn is alive or separate from the mother’s body, the resolution is certainly not affirmed in any way.

Murder should be illegal

The purpose of governments is to punish evildoers, whether directly or indirectly. My opponent said that if abortion is illegal, the mothers will accidentally kill themselves while doing back-alley abortions. If this is really the case, then that is another reason why abortion should be banned. The less murderers in society, the better, right? Of course it’s better. If people’s minds are so evil that they murder innocent children who did nothing wrong to them, then that is a good indicator that it wouldn’t bother them to kill adults as well.

Murder should always be illegal. My opponent said that I gave no evidence of why this should be, but the truth is, everybody has an innate moral code that is universal throughout each human being. Everybody knows the difference between right and wrong. And if it’s wrong, it should be illegal.