Resolved: The practice of abortion ought to be made illegal in most circumstances

Before I proceed, I would like to point out that I made a mistake. Most abortions are in fact performed in the embryonic Period and I will slightly change my argument according to this. This should cause no problem to my opponent as all of his arguments will apply this also. Fetus=HumanA human is defined as (1):A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. SapiensBelonging to a species is determined from the DNA of an organism. From the moment of conception, the new organism is a member of the H. Sapiens species. The organism has all of the human DNA that will ever be used or developed in its lifetime that is neither the mother's nor the father's. My opponent has failed to address perhaps the strongest point of my case, the fact that an embryo has all human DNA that will ever be obtained in its life. If a human is a member of the H. Sapiens, then a embryo is a human. My opponent has stated that sentience and awareness are necessary for human life. This is obviously not true. By my opponent's theory, a person who is in a coma is not a person, even though he is. Coma patients cannot feel anything outside of them and are unconscious, yet they are still human. This proposition that human life depends on sentience is absurd. Also, pregnancy is an essential tool in the building of society. It is responsible for the development and growth of mankind. Not only this, but it is also a natural cycle by the human body. To deny something natural and essential to life is unjust. Consider an alteration of this argument made by Jim Spiegel:(2)1. Pregnancy is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.4. Abortions which seek to terminate and reject a pregnancy constitute a rejection of the special value of pregnancy.5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.6. Therefore, abortion is unjust. My opponent has also asked me to prove that if a embryo were a human, abortion should be banned. This premise is self-explanatory. It is immoral to kill innocent human beings that have done nothing wrong and are coming into existence because of a natural cycle called pregnancy. Economical DisadvantageI used average statistics to determine the calculations. Some people people might have had a worse job, some better. Some might have lived longer, others shorter. These are averages. Some people might have migrated to other countries, but there are no concrete statistics. Even if an unlikely 10% migrated, it would still be an economical detriment. Also, about 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds. 17 states pay for abortions for some women. (6) This adds on to the detriment. Also, the average abortions costs about $350. (6)My Opponent's CaseC1:MoralityMy opponent is stating the government should have no obligation to enforce morality to human rights. However, the concept of human rights in it self, requires a certain set of morals to recognize them such as not murder, stealing, etc. .. Again, my opponent is stating that it is not necessarily immoral to kill millions of innocent human beings. He has the massive BOP to back this up. C1:UtilitarianismMy opponent has brought a seemingly irrelevant argument into this discussion.1. The person who randomly woke up with a violinist connected has not been previously aware of any sort of risk that this might happen. It simply happened. But this situation does not happen in a pregnancy. Unless CON can show me a woman who doesn't know that sex might lead to pregnancy, the woman has taken the risk upon herself just by having sex. Whether it be subconsciously or consciously, by knowing the possible circumstances in which the sex might result in, she has subjected herself to the risk. When somebody chooses to be subjected to a risk and the risk happens, the blame should only be on themselves, not the innocent human being inside of them. The only time that this might not happen is in cases of rape but this has been defined as no part of this debate in Round 1. 2. The circumstances of the attached violinist and pregnancy are highly different. Pregnant women can still work, earn a salary, go to school, and our society does not condone embarrassment of pregnant women. C2: Fetus not legally humanI already partly addressed this argument in the "fetus=human" rebuttal. What I have to mention is that in Round 1, it was explicitly stated that "This debate is about the future legality of abortion, therefore all present legal arguments for abortion are currently not valid. ". My opponent has accepted the definition as this point is not only violating the rules, but also an invalid point as was mentioned in Round 1. This point should automatically be thrown out, but I will provide a brief rebuttal. My opponent has stated that because an embryo is not conscious, it should not be granted rights. This is false. People in a comatose are given rights are not conscious nor viable. My opponent stated that I need to " provide accurate evidence on fetuses having almost the same aspects as fully-developed human being". This has already been done. An embryo or a fetus has all the possible DNA that a human can ever obtain in its lifetime. DNA makes an organism part of a specific species. The embryo cannot be described as "can be described as a human being, a member of the Homo sapiens," (by my opponent). The embryo is a member of the H. Sapiens. C2: Fetus not really innocent1. By having sex, the women is taking the risk of pregnancy. If the woman allows the sex to happen on her own will, then she is allowing the embryo to be inside her. My opponent also has not stated why the embryo or fetus does not have a right to use the pregnant women's body. If it does not have a right to do this, then all pregnancies should be aborted as it is a violation of the rights of the female.2. My opponent has stated that abortion is permissible in certain circumstances. I agree. This was addressed in Round 1 rules. In circumstances in which the female is at the risk of dying or has been raped, abortion is permissible. C3: Violates RightAgain, this has all been addressed in the rules of Round 1. Abortion is permissible in cases of when the women has been raped, incest, or when her life has been threatened. This point is again a violation of the rules and should be disregarded. C3: CrimeMy opponent and I have previously agreed that this debate applies solely to the United States. My opponent's sources are flawed. If you take a look at his #8 source, it applies to worldwide trends in the legalization/de legalization of abortion. It doesn't mention the US and instead talks about Eastern Europe, Uganda, and South Africa. This source and information is invalid. In fact, "a reasonable estimate for the actual number of criminal abortions per year in the pre legalization era [prior to 1967] would be from a low of 39,000 (1950) to a high of 210,000 (1961) and a mean of 98,000 per year. "(3)Compared to the 1.5 million+ abortions per year after Roe v. Wade,(4) we can conclude that the legalization/de legalization of abortion causes massive differences. Case:My opponent has given me a chance to post another small contention:The Hippocratic OathAs all abortions today are performed by doctors, all doctors must take the Hippocratic Oath. (5)It states that:"I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion". An abortion is clearly a violation of the Hippocratic Oath and cannot be deemed to continue. Sources:. http://goo.gl...