Abortion is a Violation of Human Rights

Thank you for the Reply.1: Constitution."The question is not "can the fetus be convicted for breaching the constitution?" The question is "Is the fetus in fact breaching the constitution?First: This implies the Con acknowledges that the baby can not be convicted.The child can not (by law) breach the Constitution if he is too young to legally (by law) breach it. But if he could technically breach the Constitution, it wouldn't matter because he can't be held guilty or responsible for doing it.The Child is labeled under law as a Dependent. This means the Child isn't breaching the constitution because of it's dependency. "Actually, any person who feels a certain way is based on perception."Because) Perception = RealityTherefore) I perceive being a cat = I'm a cat now.We know this isn't the truth. Perception is simply a viewpoint... Even viewpoints can be false. We see this is the following common legal example.-Person perceives underage woman as not underage:-Underage woman is still underage;-Therefore; Person still breaks the law for sleeping with her.That is a very common example of how, under law, what you perceive doesn't change reality. A woman may "perceive" being a slave, but by no means is she legally a slave, especially since the Child is legally a Dependent and not legally a Slave Owner."Also, It's not the government doing the breaching it's the fetus."Again. An unborn child can not breach the Constitution.The Government and the mother would both breach the UN articles if they deprived a child of its Right to Life for the two (hardly illegal) crimes of being dependent and inconvenient.There was no argument dropped, the child still has no rights unless the mother grants them or is forced to."No. That is Slavery. Literally, view the definition YOU gave in R2. This is hypocritical and contradictary to the point of ending Con's argument. He says that the Child may be aborted because it has made the mother a slave (although I've already discussed that.) but than making his second argument about how the mother legally owns the child, and the child has no freedom of action or rights unless it's granted...Slave1. a person legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to propertyThat definition was from Con's R2 argument. He has contradicted himself and displayed hypocrisy with two of his three arguments. Even without the Defintion, his arguments as he says them are hypocritical and contradictary.Besides, the UN's Declaration of Human Rights (granted to all humans) says that Child has all privileges and rights of a human. The Mother has no authority to revoke those rights, especially the right to life.The Con's Argument:The Child owning the Mother = breach of 14th amendment.The Mother owning the Child =/= breach of 14th amendment.He Cherry-picks who the Constitution and Declaration of Human Rights applies to for his own argument. This hypocrisy is another major contradiction in Con's Argument. He claims involuntary servitude is a breach of the Constitution and Declaration of Human Rights only when it's the woman. Although he ignores that the child is a Legal Dependent.DependentA person whose support and maintenance is contingent upon the aid of another.A dependent is someone who is sustained by another person, such as a child supported by his or her parents.(1)By law, the mother isn't a servant because the Child isn't a legal master, but a Dependent.(If) The Mother is a Slave:(Than) The Child is a Slaver Owner:(But) The Child is a Dependent and not a Slave Owner:(Therefore) The Mother is not a Slave.The Con has continued to ignore this conclusion.The Con claims the Government would have an agenda for banning abortion... The Agenda would be the preservation of human rights.The Con obviously only values rights when they are his own, and seeks to void anyone else's if they inconvenience him."With that type of logic we would consider all parasites, diseases, and all types of natural harms as "above the law". It's common for humans to tranform nature to their desire." It is 'natural' to fight off diseases, it is not natural for a mother to call for her child's execution because she can't be bothered. A Baby isn't a parasite however...[1] http://tinyurl.com...[]2: Parasite?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 Baby, the Baby can not be considered a Parasite. it is a Mutual Relationship(2), 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 discribe 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.(3,4)"More recent studies suggest that fetal cells may actually protect women against autoimmune disorders, such as rheumatoid arthritis."Like all things natural, there are a few messed up cases, but the natural relationship is benefical, 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.[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[] 3: Fair TrailThe Con claims he would exercise his right to a fair trail. However, since the punishment the Con seeks is the Death Penalty, it would require a crime so bad that the Death Penalty is required. Looking at the list (by state) of crimes punishable by death, nothing the Baby had or could have committed appears on it.(5)Even breaching the Constitution isn't punishable by Death. You would have to wait until the child is born, then sentence him to prison. Except that you couldn't, because in a fair trial, the Child couldn't be convicted because he is under the age of innocence, and can't be legally held guilty of enslaving the mother, or breaching any laws or amendments.[5] http://tinyurl.com...[]4: Slave?To began, a parasite is a parasite, not a dependent. The Con clearly does not know how Legal Dependents work.He has confused 'being dependent' with 'being a Dependent.' A Dependent is an actual legal title for humans who legally depend on someone else. You learn this quickly when tax season comes.A Parasite is not a Legal Dependent, nor is a pet... Nor is the baby a parasite or pet... Con is confusing the Normal definition with the Legal definition.(6)"A dependent is someone who is unable to care for or support themselves and looks for such care and/or support from another." - uslegal websiteNow while not all Legal Dependents are tax-deductible, under law, they are still Dependents.(7)Legally no, that's not to say a child doesn't fit the definition of slave owner if the mother is permitting it.Legally, the legal definition says what the child is regardless of anything or anyone else's opinion. Again, the Con cherry-picks who he feels has rights. The Mother doesn't dictate what the child is under law... Only the Law can, and the Law dictates that the child is a dependent. Nature built him to be dependent on his Mother, and again (as Con failed to account for in my Prior argument), Nature is above the law.We see the flaw in Cons logic that a mother chooses what rights her child has here;A) Child is 15B) Mother lets child drink alcoholC) Child still broke the lawUltimately, Con's argument is that law only matters if the Parent says so.Labor is great bodily harm, I never heard of anyone laughing and cheering while they were giving birth.Pregnancy = possible bodily harm of human mother.Abortion = guaranteed death of human baby.It's obvious which action, if allowed, does the most damage. Even than, Con continues to try to hold the child accountable for such issues. He talks of what pregnancy (might) do to women, but ignores what Abortion will do to the Baby, and to the woman. There are many issues that abortion can cause in woman,The thing about Con's argument is that it's not supported by woman with experience. As polls show, 95% of women who were denied their abortion, and had to endure the painful labor... Had no regrets.(8) So according to 95% of the women who know this first hand, Con's argument is crap.(9)[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[]5: HomicideSelf Defense implies the mother was at risk of great bodily harm... Only 15 in 100,000 mothers die in childbirth... HALF of all deaths are the fault of the doctor or hospital. Even than, the child itself is not attempting to kill you.Con gravely exaggerates the dangers of childbirth.I will rewrite this again for you...Homicide: Verb: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder: (Oxford): The killing of one human being by another human being. (Legal Dictionary)Based off the Definitions, the Mother (human) depriving the Baby (human) of life is homicide.The child isn't trying to kill the mother... The mother, however, is actually trying to kill the child... In principle, it's the child who needs self-defense.=================================Con has Acknowledged the following arguments:- Nature is Above the law.- The baby is human.- The baby is alive.- The child can not be convicted of breaching the law.I conclude that Abortion is a Violation of Humans Rights using what the Con has personally acnkolwedged...- A baby is a living human.- The UN's Declaration of Human Rights grants all living humans liberty and life.- The UN's Declaration of Human Rights grants all Babies liberty and life.- Abortion (and Con's remaining Arguments) violate those Human Rights.Therefore - Abortion is a Violation of Human RightsThe resolution is upheld...