Resolved: Abortion ought to be legal.

Let's break down Con's arguments. 1. Debate structure This really wasn't my point I was just stating there are countless positions of why someone is against abortion and expecting me to reasonably answer all of them or guess which ones Con stands behind is foolish. He has done exactly what I said in my last speech. He completely ignored all my practicality arguments because that isn't the position he stands behind. Thus, causing me to waste a major part of my first speech. If I had known that Con was only going to be arguing morality I wouldn't have even mentioned many of my arguments. Furthermore, in my first round I stated that we shouldn't be debating whether or not it is human or not because those discussions largely go nowhere, because of the fact that it is entirely opinion based, albeit mine makes much more sense logically. This is what I stated and went on to how regardless of whether it is or is not a human being, it does not have the right to someone else's body. So my argument stays within the realm of con's argument. Because their argument states they should have human rights. Human right DO NOT give someone the right to another person's body. 2. Definition The condescension in this argument is blatant. Besides, the definition doesn't describe the procedure, just describes what it does. The procedure does indeed terminate human pregnancy. Con's definition is not only not cited anywhere, so I can only assume it is their definition alone, but it is also flawed. "The killing of the human fetus" is not objective. This definition is charged with the connotation that it is inherently wrong because it is killing. Yet that is just opinion. Definitions are fact. Whether or not you believe abortion is murder my definition still stands that it terminates pregnancy. So my definition should be preferred. 3. Is the fetus human? Pro states that if the fetus is human than it has human rights, if it is not then it doesn't. This is untrue. The fetus is indeed human, but not human life. Much in a way a tumor is human but is not an individual on its own. Con attempts to compare my reasoning with saying I'm comparing a human to a dog, this is just fundamentally untrue. I'm looking at it from an objective stance, there is no difference between other cells in the body and a fetus, other than they are different types of cells. Neither of them are independent from the mother nor are either of them sentient. There is nothing that separates the fetus cells to other human cells. Life begins at sentience, because this is the first time we can separate fetal tissue from other groups of cells in the human body. Sentience begins, at the earliest, 2 weeks before birth.[1] Yes, abortions still do happen there and they should, because they only happen this late when the baby is a threat to the mother. So con's argument that me saying a fetus isn't human is not only illfounded, because obviously I acknowledge that it is human tissue, I just present that it isn't a human being; but also that it simply doesn't make any sense. My statement saying that a fetus doesn't have the right to the mothers body has nothing to do with saying it is something that it isn't. I'm just stating that I probably won't convince anyone that have already made their opinion so we should debate the consequences of pregnancy and how a human being doesn't have the right to another's body. Con then appeals to emotions by comparing it to slavery, yes slavery. Not only has he predicated his criticism on something I hadn't actually done, compare a fetus to something it isn't, but has also stretched it so far that now my argument is the same one that advocates for slavery? This is just ridiculous. He states that the argument for slavery, "If you're on my land, I get to decide if you are human or not." (Which isn't really what slavery is but alright) Uses the same rhetoric as "the right to not have somebody else's will imposed onto your own body without consent." Excuse me, what? I'm arguing that the mother has a right to her own body and no other human being can violate that without her consent. My argument on this is saying that even if the fetus was human, it still has no right to the mother's body. I understand that con is trying to say this is equivalent to the mother saying it's not human because it's on her "property"; but that is just illogical and a fallacious argument. The reason for this being, a slave is a human being, a fetus is not a human being. Human beings have sentience. Fetus' do not. 4. Roe v. Wade. In an attempt to discredit my legal argument, con states that this revolutionary women's rights case is a bad source. Again I say: Excuse me, what? Con's reasoning is an extension from the last argument in the paragraph above. He is making a false equivalence. Because a slave is a human, so is an Indian, but a fetus is not. Why? Sentience. The reason why we should prefer sentience as the mark for the start of a human being? Because any other is illogical. If you believe it should be early, like at conception as con believes, you are usually stating that because it has the potential or will eventually become a human being. This is flawed reasoning. a. Sperm has the potential to be a human being, yet contraceptives and male masturbation is legal. b. This reasoning would give an a justification to rape. Because if sperm has the potential to be a human being, and stopping that would be murder, you must let a male rape you to accommodate to that potential. Unlike con, this isn't an appeal to emotion as I have shown the logical steps to this conclusion. 5. "Fetus will become a human, and that is undisputed." What is their to dispute? My last argument addresses this as well. First, con has used another fallacy, just because it will eventually be a human separate from the mother doesn't mean it is a human being now, it actually means that it isn't a human at that time. This means, according to con's own statement, that since it isn't a human being, it has no human rights. Thank you for proving my point con. Yes the fetus has human DNA but that doesn't matter either. My hair has human DNA, yet I get it cut from my body all the time. My annoying acne has human DNA, yet I pop those annoying little things all the time. Human doesn't and shouldn't define a human life. My fecal matter would literally be a human life, under this definition. If con is trying to use this definition in the sexual reproduction context, it still doesn't make sense. Because gametes (the sperm and egg cells) would also be considered separate human beings as well. Conclusion: I have shown that my definition should be preferred, which alone should win me the debate because fetus' are not human beings. I have also shown that even if a fetus is considered a human being, human rights that it is granted don't allow for the un-consensual use of another's body. Other than moral, legally it ought to be legal as well, because of current precedent in the Roe v. Wade case, and for the fact that the start of life is a subjective matter so law shouldn't be able to stop abortions. On top of ALL of this, I have shown that the financial, emotional, and physical detriments to having an unwanted child are tremendous for both the child and the mother. "In all sense of the word," a fetus is not a human being. Sources: [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com...