removing baby is moral equivalent of removing tubes with baby in it: ectopic pregnancies

Hi all so I think today's debate could be a good one! Brief rode map (aka where I"m going to go in my speech) 1. I will be addressing key terms/analyzing the resolution 2. Refutations to my opponents points 3. presenting my own case 4. Comparing and contrasting Pro and Con worlds and showing why Con has more benefits Definitions/ analysis: Just for clarity the resolution as sated by opponent is: removing baby is moral equivalent of removing tubes with baby in it: ectopic pregnancies. So as the Pro/Affirmative/prime minister my opponent must provide the weigh criterion for the debate as well as a set of definitions for the topic, if they believe it is self explanatory they must state so. By simply leaving this out my opponent has not provided clear barriers and structure which is extreme detrimental to the educational value of today's debate so they should simply loose on this alone. Because I feel that this debate should be run properly I have picked up the burden of definitions Ectopic pregnancies: Ectopic pregnancies are pregnancies that occur outside of the natural environment for a pregnancy to occur. Source: Mayo clinic.org Equivalent: equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc. Source: Webster dictionary. com Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. Removing tubes with baby in it: The removal of a fallopian tube with a fetus inside it because of some sort of life threatening situation that the mother is in. Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy by removing the fetus. Source: medilexicon.com Im defining this as a value case and will be running it as a value debate. Again I have had to pick up this burden simply because my opponent has neglected to provide them again because of this they should loose the debate because without a value or criterion or even basic definition of the debate we can"t have an educational debate, without a value there is no way to tell who has won. Criterion: human treatment Value: Morality Refutations: So my opponents initial claim is this that morally speaking that removing a baby in the tubes is the same as just taking the baby out (which I would like to point out is called an abortion). So their claim is not only incorrect factually but also morally! Why is it factually incorrect, well simply this and this ties back to our definition of abortion as well as our definition of removing a baby in the fallopian tubes. Ok so an abortion we defined as the purposeful termination of a pregnancy by removing the fetus, so by our own definition removing just the fetus is essentially an abortion which is distinctly different then removing a fallopian tube with a baby inside of it. The reason I say this is MORALY different (our value in today's debate) is because by allowing women to eject a living breathing baby into the world without any sort of protection is simply inhuman so thus the two are not the same (Us medical branch under rules for doctors section 4.5.9 "abortions legality") . Also my opponent has provided 0 citations in today's debate round which is another reason why he should simply lose and my statement should be held above his because I have provided evidence to back my claim instead of just opinion. My opponents second argument is this "directly killing a child could be seen as inherently evil, but just pulling the baby out is very arguably completely different." What my opponent fails to see in this point is that by taking a baby out it will die! we haven"t come far enough in science to "simply remove" a fetus and have it survive unless it is in a fallopian tube or a utters. By removing the utters you will inherently kill the mother which is immoral but removing fallopian tubes will not actually kill the mother in fact women have two so it won"t do much and the baby then has a slight chance of surviving. My opponent through out their whole argument has competed a novice mistake: logical fallacy, they have continuously said the same thing over and over again by doing this he is hoping that you judges will start to believe its true not matter how illogical it is. The formal name for this logical fallacy is an ad nauseam. By presenting a logical fallacy my opponent should lose because their argument has lost its validity and sense. They have committed another logical fallacy as well hypocrisy, my opponent states "how is there really any difference between removing a uterus with the baby in it, and removing the baby itself? [not killing it directly as w an abortion]" yet earlier in the argument says "isn't that just an end run around the rule that you can't have an abortion etc?" hypocrisy at its finest ladies and gentlemen. My own points: 1. Legality a. State/government laws: The United States legalized abortion nationwide in 1973 that is an abortion before 28 weeks (http://www.guttmacher.org...) by my opponents mer suggestion they are saying that we should just remove the baby that it is the same thing as removing the fallopian tubes with a baby inside. WRONG! by just removing the baby you are committing an abortion by state and federal laws so unless my opponent is suggesting that the state and federal government don"t understand morality then they have lost this argument and I have won my first sub point. b. Crime: If we were to allow women to freely just abort a baby that is past 28 weeks which is essentially what my opponent is arguing we would be achieving our value or criterion of today's debate. 2. Human life a. Morality: The comparison of morality is key in today's debate and to just answer the question of morality paladin and simple: Killing something can never be morally the same as saving one life and potentially saving another. There is no refutation to this because it is simply true, I don"t need to provide evidence for this ether because it can logically prove itself with the definition I have provided for morality. b. Human treatment: There is simply no way my opponent can argue that killing a mother by taking out her utters is human nor can they argue that killing a baby when there's a chance of saving it is human. Since we can not achieve morality without humanity and decent human treatment my opponents whole argument has just crumbled and I have won my last point. So in a brief closing I will be comparing and contrasting the Affirmative world vs the Negative world So the Affirmative (Pro) world looks something like this - Abortions of babies that have already developed are allowed - Women dying because they can have their utters taken out just for their a baby to die - Killing something becomes morally the same as saving something - Late term abortion is a harms justify the means dilemma that becomes something that everyone even in no medical danger can do. - The value of morality is not upheld - The criterion of human treatment is not achieved And the Negation (con) world looks like this - Humanity is achieved by allowing women who have some kind of medical emergency to remove the baby in a fallopian tube thus not creating the moral dilemma of going against the law. - Morality is achieved because we have a realistic weighing of the outcomes (the a world lacks). - The law is upheld. - Safety of human life is kept. - More people will be alive and more women will be healthy. So voters I urge a strong vote in firm of the nation because of five main reasons 1. My opponents argument isn"t logically sound and they have no points left standing 2. My opponent neglected too provide any of the Affirmative burdens (i.e weigh criterion, or definitions) 3. The arguments in my case fulfill the weigh criterion and value and my points were logically and evidence based. 4. My argument holds up the American justice system a key item in our society. 5. My opponent has no benefits I do. Thanks so much for reading all this, may the best argument win! Have a wonderful day! Thanks