The morality of abortion

P1: from conception, a fetus is a member of the human race
P2: Members of the human race are intrinsically valuable
P3: It is wrong to kill an innocent human being
P4: Abortion kills a human being
C: Abortion = immoral


Defending P1: from conception, a fetus is a member of the human race

There are many theories on when a human being comes to start. The law says birth. Religion says conception. And science too has a conclusion: conception.

"The changes occurring between implantation, a six-weeks embryo, a six-months fetus, a one-week- old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life." [1]

Although this is not with P1, I will provide other evidences as well. (later abortion times) As by 8 [or even 6] weeks people record significant brain activity among the fetus. [2]

Now one must also define what is a human. There are many definitions on this topic, and there is always room for this debate. As you can already see, I believe conception is the beginning of a human being.

This argument is the simple saying of common sense. It is this simple. We know a fetus from the moment of conception is alive as after fertilization it already begins to grow and adapt to its environment. [3] Now, sure a fetus is alive. so what? It isn't immoral to hunt, deer are alive? I have actually heard this rebuttal, and it is highly flawed. Just because something is alive =/= it has intrinsic value, what gives a fetus value is because it is a living human. It is alive AND has human DNA, both of these things are needed for a human to exist. Also comparing a fetus to a deer is a poor example as other things, not just life, are needed to be a human, a fetus has these qualities, a deer does not.

Another argument I have seen is the skin cell scratch or the hair argument, as they have DNA. But this example too is flawed. Firstly, it is common knowledge the hair is dead once visible, so cutting hair is doing no damage. The skin cell argument too is flawed, as when you scratch your skin only dead skin usually falls off. Also both of these arguments are false on another premise, the mother/father organism will survive whether or not we rip these hairs out or the skin cells off, a fetus is a human ad is constructed is made up of different parts which is made from within, not like a normal object. These comparisons are extremely flawed.

The pro life position is a fetus from conception is alive and is a human, this is backed by science.

P2: Members of the human race are intrinsically valuable

The reason we have intrinsic value is because of what we embody, as opposed to instrumental value, which are totally different things. People denounce the killings of other human beings, yet this is hypocritical as I have demonstrated a fetus is a human being and these people support abortion, often. As people denounce the killing of others this shows there must be some value to a human, either through societies or other outlets. A fetus is as valuable as a human, so a fetus therefore has value.

P3: It is wrong to kill another [innocent] human being

This is fairly indisputable, there are cases though where it is justified. But abortions in the case of this debate (whoops the contraception failed) does not apply to the possibly just reasons to kill. It is a fact it is wrong to kill an innocent person, by opponent would likely agree, but differs on when life begins. As a fetus has done nothing wrong, it is wrong to kill a person (fetus is a human), and a fetus has value, couldn't I technically end here? But I continue :P

P4: Abortion kills a human being

Here is where my opponent will disagree, a fetus is a human so it does not kill any human being. Well before I talk about my premise, lets first see what abortion is.

"The word abortion comes from the Latin abortio, which means to abort, miscarry, deliver prematurely. The Latin word abortus means "miscarriage, premature, untimely birth". In medicine abortion means ending a pregnancy prematurely. " [4]

Now my opponent agree abortion ends pregnancy deliberately. But we differ on the premise of the does abortion kill a human being. As I have proven, assuming science is correct in assuming a fetus is a human [at conception], then abortion is in fact terminating a human being, and as hums have intrinsic value and it is wrong to kill a human abortion is morally wrong. This now brings me to my closing.

Conclusion:

Abortion is a termination of a pregnancy, which in turn KILLS A HUMAN, with intrinsic value and ends a perfectly innocent person. As it is widely accepted a killing of another human is morally wrong, and a fetus is a person, then abortion should also be considered morally wrong by more people. So to close, abortion is morally wrong, as it ends a persons life. I will once again outline the basic argument:

P1: Life starts at conception
P2: Members of the human race are intrinsically valuable
P3: It is wrong to kill an innocent human being
P4: Abortion kills a human being
C: Abortion = immoral

Vote para mio!!




[1] Willke & Willke, Handbook on Abortion, (1971, 1975, 1979 Editions)
[2] J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Journal of Medicine.
[3]  ttp://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_12.aspfacts
[4] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/145870.phpAbortion

National Healthcare, the way to go?

I think this post is appropriate with the obamacare legislation heading to the supreme court soon, and if that is declared constitutional the left will pounce even farther left then they already are. I know, that seems impossible. But is the praise the NHS (national healthcare system) getting fair? Lets first look into US care, US government care, then other countries as a whole.

US Rankings in the health

Now a thing that liberals use is the US is ranked 36th in worst healthcare, but this gets my goad. The rankings go from health to healthcare in general. So the thing that they forget is the thing that bumps us down is NOT our healthcare, but our health.

"In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked 191 countries based on data from 1997. The countries were evaluated by five factors, including the overall health of the population and distribution of health services. In categories such as responsiveness and expenditures, the U.S. ranks number one, showing a commitment to deliver speedy health care to our citizens regardless of cost. Many factors such as obesity and smoking have lowered the health of Americans and, thus, lowered our ranking with the WHO. Since 1997" [1]


---> US goverment care 

About 11% of children on US private insurance get declined from doctors, but or medicaid a whole 67% get rejected from doctors! [2] Ok before I go into other stats may I go into personal belief? (note my opponent DOES NOT NEED to refute this). My dad as a doctor hates medicaid, to many regulations. Ok back to evidence. there is a 74% higher death rate from surgeries when your insurance is medicaid over their private counter parts. [3] Another study indicates they are 8.5 times more likely to say no to you if yo have medicaid then if you have private insurance. [4] 17% of doctors and 31% of primary care doctors reject patients on medicare. [5] medicare part B is the cause for many drug shortages. [6] I could rest my case here, as current US programs for healthcare are terrible, and a national system woudl just spread the pain, but hey lets keep going.

If the US government system fails here, then why would a NHS be better? I have never seen a successful refutation to that.


Other countries

Canada 

-56%of Canadians have trouble getting care [7]
- 14% of canadians dont even have a family doctor [7]
- Canadian medical association worried about the long wait times there [7]
- 875,000 people on wait lists for care in Canada [7]
- four week wait for CT scan [7]
- 8 weeks for MRI's or more [7]
- 17.8 weeks for wait in family doctor [7]
- four months for hip replacements [7]
- one half of the people for minor surgeries suffer pain because of the pain [7]
- brain drain, 1/9 doctors leave to the US to work [7]
- high taxes [7]
- hospitals under equipped [7]
- only 26% of canadians saw a doctor when they needed one [7]

I am so excised for this kind of care guys!! /end sarcasm

UK:

- 78%survival rate for breast cancer, 98%in the US. [8]
- 80,000 people with Alzheimer's dont get treatment because the government chooses to give them drugs or not. [8]
- 5 year wait time to get hearing aids [8]
- Medicines allowed in one part of England may not exist in another [8]
-  Thousands do not get appropriate care due to government inefficiencies [8]
- there is only 2 doctors per 1000 people, the world average is 3 [8]
- Many new doctors in the UK are against the NHS [8]
- NHS with holds care from patients, restricting many usages of needed medicines [8]
- The NHS has destroyed HC in the UK [8]

Not sure whether I am more excited for the UK's or the Canadian NHS more. Both seem better then ours [US], we get immediate care, but they get to wait for 17 weeks... But seriously guys, really NHS?

France:

(maybe this one has better care *researches* nope sorry guys)

- No reimbursements for some drugs [9]
-  only 35% reimbursement for comfort drugs [9]
- 10% of household income is sent every week to NHS [9]
- French spend the most on GDP on HC in Europe [9]
- 11.8 billion dollars of debt in the system [9]
-  Doctors underpaid and the government restricts the amount of people that can enter med. school [9]
- Shortage of technology like CT scanners or MRI machines [9]
-  Many people under insured under the NHS [9]
- The NHS impedes job growth, makes it hard to hire people [9]

I still do not want this type of care, I mean only a crazy person wants a debted HC system!

Germany: 

(sorry no matter how much I like you guys I hate your HC system)

- you have to have insurance [10]
- 90% of people are on the public insurance plan [10]
- 14.9% payroll taxes [10]
- 800 billion euros in debt (the NHS is) [10]
- high bureaucracy [10]
- high premiums [10]

And the source ends there :(

Netherlands:

- lower quality care with the NHS [11]
- Higher premiums with the NHS [11]
- 1.5% fail to pay premiums [11]
- Most doctors hate the bureaucracy there [11]
- the mandates force people to buy plans bigger then they need [11]
- do not take into account patient needs [11]

ok great, NHS sucks. Want more? Then keep reading.


10 things you should know


1. US has higher cancer survival rates then other countries (Europe)


Cancer mortality rate for breast cancer is 52% higher in Germany then in the US. [12]  Prostate cancer mortality rate is 604 times higher in the UK then the US. [12]


2. US has better cancer survival rates then other countries (Canada)


"Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States." [12]

3. People in the US have better access to care 

"ome 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease.  By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them. " [12]

4. Americans have better preventative care then Canadians

• "Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
• Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
• More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
• Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent)." [12]

5. Lower income Americans have better care then poor canadians 

"Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent).  Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."" [12]

6. Less wait times in the US

"Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.  All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.  In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment." [12]

7. People in these countries are pissed

"More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."" [12]

8. Americans more satisfied with care then canadians

"When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent)." [12]

9. Americans have better medical technology and access it better

"Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.  [See the table.]  The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain.  The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain " [12]

10. The US is responsible for most of the medical advancements 

"The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country. Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize.   Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States." [12]












source: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

So, now tell me, national healthcare system sound good to you?





[1] http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/myths-facts/comparing-health-care-systems-worldwide/
[2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/06/16/new-england-journal-two-thirds-of-medicaid-children-denied-a-doctors-appointment-vs-11-for-the-privately-insured/
[3] http://www.avikroy.org/2010/07/uva-study-surgical-patients-on-medicaid.html
[4] http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/03/14/survey-internists-are-8-5-times-as-likely-to-reject-all-medicaid-patients-vs-those-with-private-insurance/
[5] http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-06-20-medicare_N.htm?AID=4992781&PID=4166869&SID=1bsrf57l0v8qk
[6] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/how-medicare-price-controls-have-contributed-to-drug-shortages
[7] http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/case-study-canada/
[8] http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/case-study-united-kingdom/
[9] http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/case-study-united-kingdom/
[10] http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/case-study-germany
[11] http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/case-study-netherlands
[12] http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
[13] Concord Working Group, "Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study,.S. abe at  responsible for theountries, in s chnologies, "
[14] U.S. Cancer Statistics, National Program of Cancer Registries, U.S. Centers for Disease Control; Canadian Cancer Society/National Cancer Institute of Canada