Thank you, drlebronski, for your round 2
1. Rebuttal: Pro R2: Woman’s body
a. Pro argues that by virtue of the fetal connection to the placenta via the umbilical cord, it is part of the woman’s body. While it is true that the placenta, the umbilical, the amniotic sac and the fetus are all the same DNA of tissue belonging to the same individual, contrary to Pro’s assertion, that individual is the fetus, not the mother. None of that tissue, but the uterus, only, is mother’s tissue by DNA.
b. “Oxygen and nutrients from the mother's blood are sent across the placenta to the fetus… Waste products from the fetal blood are transferred back across the placenta to the mother's blood…”[i]
A careful read of this passage from Pro’s source will reveal that not even is fetal and mother’s blood is shared; they remain separate by a blood barrier in the placenta.
c. This is one of the placenta’s primary functions; to keep the two blood supplies separate, with only nutrients from the mother and waste matter from the fetus exchanging through the placental blood barrier.
d. The fact is, these fetal tissues, the fetus, itself, the amniotic sac and fluid, the umbilical, and placenta, share its own tissue by DNA match completely separate from the mother’s DNA.[ii]
2. Rebuttal: Pro’s R2: Rape, sexual assault
a. Pro’s argument of rape and sexual assault, is, on the surf ace, compelling. As I argued in my R1, 2.m, these matters, including “incest, ignorance of consequences of sexual activity, or use of failed contraceptives…These are matters more in the realm of morality, which this debate is not about at all.”
b. Pro did not bother to argue why theses issues should legalize abortion [but it is, already], he merely makes the prima facie claim, as if there were no other means available to resolve the matter, but, there are; adoption, for example. By simply claiming that the pregnant woman claims privacy of her body ignores the science, and law, that, as argued in my R1, 2.a - .m, science and the law separate the fetal personhood, and it’s own deserved rights.
3. Rebuttal: Pro’s R1, Health risk of pregnancy
a. Pregnancy is a health risk. Yes, I agree. But, so is a diet of fast food, excessive snacking, as well as cigarettes and alcohol, or even an abuse of excessive healthy, fresh food. Further, all these other health risks are matters of personal choice. Once of age, we personally decide what we consume, and we bear the consequences of those decisions.
b. Since, as Pro admitted, “Typically, gestational hypertension occurs during the second half of pregnancy and goes away after delivery,” these health risks are usually not a permanent matter, as are choices of personal consumption. Therefore, avoiding these risks by choosing to abort is an extreme choice given the temporary nature of the health risk. Since accidents in the home of just about any origin are the most frequent occurrence of accidents, perhaps we should abort our living at home?
4. Defense: Abortion is murder
a. Pro rebutted in R2: “If you are in a life threatening situation where something could kill you; you would fight back and maybe even kill the killer.”
b. I’ll remind Pro that killing is not necessarily murder; the two concepts are legally separated. Self-defense is a defensible position that has legal standing.[iii]
c. Pro further rebutted: “…my point is that in the case of human life, there are a great many situations where, when one life poses a threat to another, that life can reasonably be taken.”
d. Pro has just justified the defense of my position, and the rebuttal to his own argument cited above in my R2, 4.b. However, Pro must agree that actual risk of life to the mother due to pregnancy is a very low incident: 211 per 100,000 pregnancies risk the mother’s life, or 0.21%. There is much higher risks to women and men by our poor choices of consumption through the pie hole. Do we abort our mouths as a resolving measure? At least the mouth is part of each of our DNA’s; not so a fetus.
e. I, therefore, consider this rebuttal to have failed to support the Topic.
5. Argument: The blame game
a. Sexual intercourse is very rarely an accidental event. Almost always, the act is a choice made by one, and the other consents, or one, and the other unsuccessfully resists, or both together. It is the nature of the act that neither generally know what consequences will result other than by past experience and/or knowledge of the potential consequences, including conception.
b. What is known for certain is that, with conception, the only entity who neither contributed to the act, or chose the consequences, is the resulting zygote/embryo/fetus. Having no part in the decision, why is this entity the only one who will, with abortion, be virtually guaranteed to pay for those consequences with its life?
c. Such consequences as the end of innocent human life are not justified merely on the argument of inconvenience, lack of volition, ignorance of consequences, potential health risks, or even failure of contraceptive measures in sexual activity. Better to abstain if all consequences are not acceptable, and choice of sexual activity by both partners is the plurality of situations.[iv]
d. It is a blame game with one suffering the direst and most permanent of circumstantial results, and that one is the most innocent of the cause. Is this really just, whether we are talking of the law, or of morality, or even of sexual abuse in all its manifestations? What of those who were actually responsible for choice?
e. I argue that it is not the zygote/embryo/fetus who rightly bears the just consequence of such action as abortion, and, therefore, the Topic is defeated.
I rest my case for round 2 and pass R3 to Pro.