Resolved: The practice of abortion ought to be made illegal in most circumstances

C1:Fetus=HumanMy opponent dismisses my argument that the fetus/embryo is part of the H. Sapiens species without any valid justification. Also, my opponent has dropped one of my most important points which is that the fetus/embryo has all the human DNA that will ever be developed in its lifetime. Biologically speaking, the embryo is not a potential human life, it is a human life. Coupled with the facts that is it from the H. Sapiens species and has all human DNA, there is no valid justification for not considering the embryo to be a human being. My opponent tries to dismiss my "coma argument" by saying that a person in a coma already already has legal rights and is not inside the womb and therefore should not have rights. Legal Rights The argument is moot and invalid from Round 1. Current legality is not of a matter of concern in this debate. Therefore the fact that the person in the coma already had legal rights is dismissed. Not inside the womb and therefore should not have rights I quote from my opponent:"embryos have no legal rights because they are inside the wombs and will only have rights once they are separated from the mother (Embryos are not recognized by law as having rights because person hood is defined by the state)"The second part of the argument can be dismissed. How the State currently defines person hood is irrelevant. My opponent states that there is a distinct differentiation between supposed rights of a human being outside the womb and inside the womb. First of all, he has not provided any valid justification for why the human being inside the womb should have less rights than the human being outside the womb. Second, if being inside/outside the womb makes so much difference, then what is the difference between a fetus ten minutes before birth and immediately after birth? Except for the surrounding environment, there are absolutely no differences between these two circumstances. This point of my opponent is therefore refuted. C1: Bear ScenarioIt seems as if my opponent has misunderstood the bear scenario. First of all, the point isn't whether or not the person who shot the gun was doing it accidentally. The point is that it is not worth it to take the risk when there could be a real human being behind the bushes. The man did not think that he was shooting a bear. He knew that it could have been a bear or a human, a 50/50 chance. Whether or not society condemns him is irrelevant. C1: Spiegel's Argument My opponent has virtually dropped this point and he untruthfully proclaims that he will rebut it in the morality segment. His only defense was "dying is something natural and (one might say) essential, should we consider modern medicine unjust too? ". Death is natural, but that whole argument also hinges on pregnancy having special social value and being the precondition to society. Death does not have any special social value. In fact, if everybody was immortal, and therefore without death, society would be able to function. But without pregnancy, the precondition for society in our world, we would all die out. My point is that even though death is natural, it is not the indispensable means by which society is created nor does it have any special social value. C2: Economical Disadvantage My opponent has done literally nothing here nor in the previous round to rebut my points. I have shown them to be valid under average statistics. I have also left out the fact that many abortion are taxpayer funded which adds to the economic societal detriment. He states that "Again, having the black market and criminals profit more than the private sector/state is NEVER a good idea to society and economy. " However, he has nothing to back up his assumption. Black market profits are still economically beneficial as the provider obtains money which he can spend on various societal goods. The people who illegally performed the abortions still spent the money back to society. C3: Hippocratic OathI will address each of my opponent's concerns:1) This oath is not historically taken by physicians; it is still taken by physicians. This also an appeal to novelty. Just because something is old, does not make it any less valid.2) This oath focuses on morality, instead of binding legality. Not only does this debate have nothing to do with current legality, but just because something is not binding, does not make it any less valid.3) False. In the US, only physicians can perform abortions. (8)4) False. According to the National Library of Medicine, that is the original oath. (9)C4: MoralityJust because I did not put it in Round 2, does not mean that I concede that killing innocent human beings is acceptable. Not only is this common logic, but also backed up by my Round 3 rebuttal. My opponent has provided two examples of when he thinks that my case would fall apart due to technicalities. I will rebut both of them. It is highly unlikely that both birth control and physical contraceptives would fail when used together. Anyways, it is possible. My opponent has completely neglected the part where I previously said that by engaging in the act of coitus, the participants are automatically taking up a risk. Contraceptives might reduce the risk, but they don't eliminate them. Whether sub-consciously or consciously, the risk has already been taken and the blame is put on the people engaging in the act of coitus. To put the blame on the baby is absurd and illogical. When a woman's life is threatened, abortion is permissible, as stated by our rules. Also, even if the woman's life is not threatened but she is somewhat temporarily disabled, the killing of the baby is not justified simply because of a temporary "disability. Would it be justified to kill your child if he would not let you go to work? No. C5: Fetus =/= Legal HumanAgain, the term legal is irrelevant to this debate. You have definitely not proven that the coma argument is invalid. Readers can refer back to "Fetus=Human". C6: Fetus not really innocentRefuted as part of Utilitarianism last round and Morality this round. C7: Violates RightsMy opponent mentions "moral, universal or God-given rights". He has introduced these so called "rights" without any proof of them even existing. My opponent's introduction and statement of these so called "rights" absurd and rendered moot. Right to choose and to have dignity- Nobody is forcing women to have children. If they really don't want to then they can abstain from having coitus. Just because birth control fails, it does not automatically give the women the right to abort. As previously discussed, a certain level of risk is accepted simply by engaging in coitus. Just because someone cannot economically handle a child, does not give them the right to kill it. Many different approaches can be taken such as adoption. Also, having lived is better than never having lived. C8: CrimeMy opponent's evidence is not based in the US and therefore is nullified and moot. There is no proof that these patterns would have been replicated in the US. I provided a source which stated otherwise, but apparently my opponent automatically thinks that a book source is invalid with no justification whatsoever. Also, President of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Mary Calderone pointed out in a 1960 American Journal of Health article that Dr. Kinsey showed in 1958 that 84% to 87% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. Dr. Calderone herself concluded that "90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians. " It seems that the vast majority of the alleged “back-alley butchers” eventually became the “reproductive health providers” of our present day. (7)Conclusion Embryo is a human. Immoral to kill humans. Abortion is an economical detriment. Women do not have a right to abortion. By having coitus, they are exposing themselves to the risk. I hope that my opponent does not introduce any new information or sources in the next round. Sources:. http://goo.gl...Great debate.