Abortion should be federally illegal.

Thank you for accepting! Good luck to you too ;D First, I agree to the Con's definition of abortion, and I believe it basically says the same thing as my own. I agree to the Con's first contention that abortion is not against religion. I don't think religion is a legitimate reason to make abortion illegal, and I don't believe the legalization of abortion oppresses religion. However, I want to respond to a statement he made under this contention: "We should tailor to what the people want which is abortion." Let me quickly point out that we cannot always tailor to what the people want. America did just that before the Civil Rights' Movement, and millions of Africans were enslaved and abused because of it. Sometimes the majority is wrong. In response to his second contention, I say that yes, reproduction choices do empower women. So does the right to murder someone. I cannot claim that because I need to be "empowered," I have the right to kill an innocent person. How would that stand up in a court case? No judge would let you off of a murder charge just because you believe you should be "empowered." That isn't justice. In response to his third contention that fetuses are not alive, I will point out that Con has not responded to my pre-rebuttal of this point. If a fetus is not alive, then neither is a parasite, germ, or even an organ. And yet, we commonly refer to all of these as "living." Why? Because we have nothing to fear from admitting that they have life. But the minute a human fetus enters the picture, admitting that it is alive would threaten a political position. Roe v. Wade brought up a definition of life that literally makes no sense - it excludes each of these things that we all know to be living, and goes against what we know the word "life" to mean. On that note, how is using the ability to survive outside the womb as a definition for life any different than using the ability to survive outside of life support? Is someone who needs to be fed through a tube, or lives on a machine to breath for them, or pump their heart for them, not alive, simply because they cannot survive on their own? In fact, if this idea is carried all the way, one would even be forced to argue that children are not alive either, because they could not support themselves and would starve without their parents. Life is not determined by independence, it is determined by a distinction from death, and that is logical, intuitive, and makes sense. Under this contention, Con said, "You can not fend for yourself while in the womb, which makes you not alive." When did helplessness come to define someone as non-living? Is a born baby non-living simply because s/he is helpless? What does this mean? If the helpless are not living, then can they just be taken advantage of? Do the helpless become doormats simply because they are helpless? No. The helpless need a voice; they need someone to stick up for them. When we see someone who is helpless being taken advantage of, we stick up for them; we don't just let it happen, and we certainly don't join in. In response to his fourth contention of rape and incest cases, I will bring up the option of adoption. Any mother can be given a C-section and put her child up for adoption, and then she does not suffer the undue negative effects of the rape. This is not too much trouble to ask of someone in order to save an innocent human life. In response to his analogy of the ugly duckling, I say, are we telling this baby that his life is not worth living, simply because he is likely to have some hardships? Who gets to tell another human being that they can't choose whether their life is worth living or not? We don't force people into suicide when they face hardships, we stick with them, encourage them, and try to carry their burdens with them, to the best of our abilities. How much moreso for the voiceless, helpless, unborn child? In defense of my own case: 1. My first point was that abortion is killing, because fetuses are alive. Con attacked this point with his third contention, and I responded to it already. Life is not determined by independence, it is determined by a distinction from death. 2. My next point was that fetuses are innocent, and Con accepted this point. However, I will respond to his claim that "they have a constitutional right to abort this baby." Let's set this issue straight: They do not have a Constitutional right, they have a legal right, by a ruling of the Supreme Court. The Constitution never talks about giving mothers the right to murder the unborn, however, it does promote everyone's individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Supreme Court made the wrong decision in Rowe V. Wade, and now we are seeing the consequences. 3. Finally, I said that fetuses are human. Con responded that whether a fetus is human or not, women will still abort it. My defense is that this doesn't matter to the resolution. The resolution states that abortion should be federally illegal, and enforcement is an issue for a separate debate. I will point out that since Con has neglected to argue the fact of this point, it still flows to Pro. In conclusion, we cannot deny that something is alive, just for an excuse to kill it. Abortion would not even exist if fetuses were not alive. Because a fetus is undeniably living, undeniably human, and undeniably innocent, the federal government has no excuse for allowing it to be ruthlessly murdered.