Resolved: Legalized Abortion is the Greatest Crime against Humanity in the History of Mankind

I will now take this time provide refutation and expand my points. I would like to ask my opponent if he would agree with the following: If it can be established that a human being’s life, personhood and basic human rights begins at conception, “Legalized Abortion would then be the Greatest Crime against Humanity in the History of Mankind. ” No, I would not agree with this statement for two major reasons: firstly, it would sidetrack this debate to whether or not human personhood and rights begin at conception (though this debate is clearly headed there), and secondly I generally do not agree with the statement even if human personhood began at conception (which it does not) F-1 If a human being in the first days, weeks, months of their life is not a “human being,” then what kind of being are they. This depends on the wording. If the human being has been born and is living INDEPENDANTLY of the mother, than it is a human being. If the “human being” is still an embryo or is still inside the mother, then it is not considered a human being as it is part of the mother. It is not any kind of being as it cannot live independently and thus is not even considered an organism. F-2 Does Con disagree that a human being in the womb is a “human””organism”? Yes, I disagree with that. As I did in R2, I defined the term organism based off of the SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION, not the definition of planning parents. As per my definition, an organism must be able to live independently which a foetus cannot. The human being in the womb is part of the mother. Does Con still hold that a human being in the first days of their life is a “non human” being? No as the “first days of life” occur AFTER the baby has been born. After a baby is born, it is a human. Before it is not. F-3. Where is it stated that consciousness is a requirement for a human being in any stage of development to be considered to be a human being? Nowhere, this is common logic. By your definition then, if consciousness and awareness is not a requirement for a human being in any stage of development, you would consider an egg and sperm to be human beings? They are the building blocks of human life, thus we can consider them the very earliest stage of human being, can we not? F-4. How can a POTENTIAL being physically exist? Even as a new child is in the first days of their life (Con’s source #4) they do physically exist. Don’t they? This is acting under the assumption that since there is a body, there is a person. That is not the case. I have already established that the fetus is not a human being, thus despite the fact that it physically exists, it is not a human being, it is part of the mother. Thus, it has the potential to become an independent human being. F-5. Babies are not persons, Con? Of course they are persons, I was using the term to describe the human being in the womb, it is a much faster and easier term to use than pre-natal children. Please do not misinterpret my words. F-6. How does one get a physical measurement of “3 inches long” on a potential human being? I have already explained this. The fact that there is a physical measurement, or that something is physically there, means nothing. By that same logic, sperm and eggs are also human beings because even though they completely lack consciousness, they are physically there, correct? To the votes, I ask; “Does Con’s use of the word “baby” here to describe human children in the womb not infer to you that he knows and acknowledges the fact that a child in the womb is an “organism,” You are trying to win the argument by preying on my word choice. NO, I am not acknowledging that a pre-natal child (or baby) is a person because it IS NOT an organism, IS NOT a human being, and IS mere potential. In my argument, the alleged crime is against the child and is perpetrated by the mother. Of course her actions are voluntary. So by your logic, it is a crime for the mother to menstruate? Thousands of eggs, I’m sorry, human beings, are killed monthly. The mother is committing a crime against her eggs. Of course not, the baby is PART of the mother, which you have not refuted. Thus, the mother is doing nothing wrong as the baby is PART of the mother. The mother has the RIGHT to do what she wishes with her body. Civility is not easy to maintain as Pro considers the denials such as Con’s (above) to contribute to those numbers. I’m a guy, secondly it is wrong of you to say 1.24 BILLION children, a more correct statement would be 1.24 billion CLUMPS OF CELLS THAT ARE PART OF THE MOTHER AND THUS THE MOTHER HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. My opponent has dropped many arguments and has had a complete lack of refutation. My opponent has not contested the fact that a fetus is part of the mother, and thus the mother can do what she wishes with the fetus. Pro has also failed to provide any refutation to my contentions and instead has decided to attack me with semantics and word-play instead of actually trying to refute my points. My points on why genocide is a far greater crime still stands. Many questions were asked and I have answered all of them. I look forward to Pro’s response.