Abortion should be illegal in the United States except when both mother and child might die.

Overview: The Person-hood contention is all I need. Judge Blackmun himself stated that abortion itself must not be legal if personhood is established. I've also turned his Bodily Autonomy argument into my own.Rebuttal I: Roe Vs. Wade:Con is making a false analogy. He dares to compare a fetus to a person swinging a machete. Homicide is only legal in self-defense (1) so unless the mother is without a doubt dying, which also implies both will die, Abortion must follow the same principle. Even then, a fetus is hardly comparable to a man swinging a machete. The words of Judge Blackmun that I posted wasn't just his sole opinion. It was the actual final decision of Roe v Wade. The court concluded that if personhood is established, the entire case for abortion drops because the fetus is then guaranteed the Right to Life.1) http://tinyurl.com...Rebuttal II: Universal Declaration of Human Rights:Ratify: verbsign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.(2)Con fails to mention that his source is an Australian government site. While not legally binding there, it is in the US as the US both singed AND ratified the document. While Australlia doesn't consider it valid, the UDHR is a valid document in the US Government, with the US even releasing a report on how important the document is to the Government (3).A: Con is purposefully disregarding my words, cherry-picking what I said to fit his argument. I said the fetus also has Bodily Integrity. This isn't a matter of "distinction" as the voiding of the woman's right in this case has nothing to do with a distinction. To make abortion illegal disregards the woman's bodily autonomy, while to legalize it disregards the fetus's bodily autonomy AND his right to life, giving him priority in this discussion. This is not a matter distinction. If it were, con might have been on to something.And the woman's bodily autonomy ends where the fetus's body begins. She may do all things with her own body... but the fetus is not apart of her body (nor is it an intruder, as that area of the body was made specifically to hold it.) I've already explained this. Con has been disregarding my arguments as though I never made them in order to carry on his.B: Con is once again making a false analogy. An innocent fetus is hardly comparable to any of those scenarios. Even then, it does not void the fetus's rights. The fetus is more comparable to an annoying child that's costing you money and convenience, but surely you can't kill him.C: This is a matter of which right comes first. When two rights conflict, the more fundamental right must come first. The Right to Life is the most fundamental of each of those. These is another case where the fetus has a lot more to lose. In one corner, the women uses security of person, in the other corner, the fetus loses his security of person, liberty, and right to life.That's one thing Con keeps ignoring to make his case... Who has more to lose if their rights were put last for the other.D: Con must understand that this debate is about the US... Not the EU. Courts have let to conclude anything because Abortion has been seen favorably every year until the previous decade. Until recently, Abortion has held a very pro-choice majority. Since then, Abortion has seen many defeats in courts and congress.2) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...3) http://tinyurl.com...Rebuttal III: Is A Fetus Human.Con is reverting to word play and semantics to win his argument. I have stuck completely to science. Being human is genetic, it is Human DNA that makes us Human (4).A: Many humans aren't fully formed after birth. Many are born without formed arms, or even fully formed bones. They are still human. This is, again, making irrelevant distinctions in an attempt to void the fetus's humanity. Being human isn't about how formed you are. The fetus has human DNA, it is human.B: An individual is defined as "Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human:" by the Free Dictionary (5). Since the fetus is a single human, it's an individual.C: Even a corpse is human (i.e. Human Corpse.) Ones humanity stays after death. This is why they cannot use your body parts without your permission after you die. For the sake of debate, I've fully explained how a fetus is alive.Con has started to depend on semantics and twisted word meanings to win his case.4) http://tinyurl.com...5) http://tinyurl.com...Rebuttal IV: Is The Fetus Alive.A: A fetus also can't reproduce... Much like a 3 year old child. Characteristic of life are not called upon immediately. They are more a guideline of what a living organism will develop over time. A child can't reproduce, and many people are born not able to feel pain or react, but they are all living. A fetus will, in time, develop each characteristic, making it alive.You don't become a living organism when you hit puberty and your body is fully developed to reproduce. You are already a live because when you fully develop you will acquire each characteristic.B: A fetus is not a virus. Not scientifically or logically. Nothing could reasonably turn a fetus into a virus either. Con is again using faulty analogies to dehumanize the fetus.I have already described, in full depth, how a fetus develops each Characteristic. The fetus is fully alive because it will develop each Characteristic before birth. Much like how a child is still human because he will develop the ability to reproduce, the fetus is a live because it will develop each of its characteristics. Although the unicellular Zygote cannot be held to the full requirements of a full grown organism.To be alive, a unicellular organism must have cell division. Scientists find out it a one celled thing is alive by putting it in the right medium, and seeing if it reproduces (cell division.) Although the long list some use is eating, maintaining an interior environment, and growing. All of which a Zygote does. It is illogical to assume the Fetus was alive as a Zygote then suddenly not a live until birth.Argument I: Parasitic Relationship?In case the argument is brought up. The concept of a Parasite is that it isn't supposed to be there. The woman's body was literally made to host it, and to create it. Because the woman's body was designed to host the fetus, the fetus cannot be considered a Parasite. it is a Mutual Relationship(6), and not a Parasitic Relationship. In fact, the mother actually gains a lot from the relationship.The definition of Parasite is too broad, and doesn't fully pinpoint or describe the complexity of a Mother-Baby relationship. One of the many benefits the Woman receives is Fetal Cell Microchimerism. What research has found is that cells from the Pregnancy is left behind, and helps prevent the woman from later issues like autoimmune disorders.(7,8)"More recent studies suggest that fetal cells may actually protect women against autoimmune disorders, such as rheumatoid arthritis." - Scientific AmericanLike all things natural, there are a few messed up cases, but the natural relationship is beneficial, not parasitic.Also, the Woman's body gives the Baby nutrients. The Child doesn't just 'take' the nutrients and support, it is given it by the mother's body. The body ultimately has final say, which is why your heart beats without you making it.6) http://tinyurl.com...7) http://tinyurl.com...8) http://tinyurl.com...Conlcusion: Con has reverted to extremely faulty analogies and wordplay to win his case. Both of which are known fallacies: False Analogy and Equivocation. Con's own definition of personhood has trapped him. A fetus is, without a doubt, human. It's in it's DNA. And even as a Zygote, it's alive. Much of Con's arguments exist by ignoring numerous of mine. Con even cherry-picked my R2 argument on Bodily Autonomy. Ignoring my entire argument and taking only the part where I agreed about the women's autonomy. He never discussed my argument, in fact.Con has dropped my argument about the Fetus' bodily integrity. The entire argument rest on if the fetus is alive, as its humanity is absolute. Of course, it's questionable still as seen in the definitions I gave in R1. This is also poor conduct on Con's behalf. I gave a definition of "Person" from two respected dictionaries, and then in Con's argument, he gave his own view of what being a person was, ignoring my prior set definitions and going with his own subjective view of it.Being alive was not a premise in either of the definition. Con simply ignored my dictionary definitions, and set his own personal definitions that included being alive, trying to wrongly change the requirements in his favor. Although I have still shown that a fetus is alive. This was poor conduct on Con's behalf. The definition of person was already set.Unless Con can show that the fetus is not a human, the fetus is legally, and by definition, a person. Killing may only be done in self-defense. If the women is at risk, so is the baby, thus upholding the resolution. Taking a human life is only legal in that scenario. This means that unless the women might die, abortion is not justifiable homicide. Also, anyone under 10 cannot legally break laws.Homicide: VerbThe killing of one human being by another human being.(9)I have established that a fetus is scientifically living and genetically human. By both my definitions and Con's definition, the fetus is a person. The conclusion of Roe v Wade makes clear that if a fetus is defined as a person, the case falls apart, as the fetus is protected by the 14th Amendment and has the Right to Life. The UN also then protects the fetus, WITHOUT DISTINCTION. The fetus has all human rights, and may only be legally kiled in self defense. If the mother is at risk, so is the child.9) http://tinyurl.com...Only if both mother and child is at risk does abortion become justified homicide. The Resolution is Upheld.