Resolved: Legalized Abortion is the Greatest Crime against Humanity in the History of Mankind

I appreciate my opponent's response in the previous round (R-2). Ishallannoyyo’s conduct and consideration of my questions and arguments confirms that I made a good choice in selecting him as my opponent. I have read through Con's R-2 comments, arguments and answers several times now and it’s clear that Con does not regard prenatal children (children in the womb) as 'human beings' (R-2) and therefore he doesn't regard them as 'persons. ' Before I proceed with my R-3 arguments, I would like to ask my opponent if he would agree with the following; "If it can be established that a human being's life, personhood and basic human rights begins at conception, "Legalized Abortion would then be the Greatest Crime against Humanity in the History of Mankind." Going Forward (follow ups): In this round, I would like to address Con's answers to my previous questions in (R-2) and then offer some follow up questions on the same subject. To my question; "Do prenatal human children not comprise an ethnic and or national 'group' of human beings [3][4]?" Con responded with; "No, prenatal human children do not comprise an ethnic or national group because they are not human beings..." I ask Con to be equally considerate of these follow up questions related to that answer. F-1. If a human being in the first days, weeks, months of their life is not a 'human being,' then what kind of being are they? F-2. Does Con disagree that a human being in the womb is a 'human' organism' [6] [7] [8]? I would like to direct Con's attention to his own citation during R-2 where he listed 'Dehumanization - The victims are considered non-humans' as one of the stages of Genocide. Does Con still hold that a human being in the first days of their life is a 'non human' being? To Pro's question #2 in round two; "2. Are prenatal human beings not deliberately killed when they are aborted?" Con answered; "No as I will explain in my constructive." Con went on to espouse the (widely held) view that a human child in the first days of their life (when they are 'a group of non-conscious cells') has only the 'POTENTIAL to become a human being.' I ask Con what I consider to be the obvious follow up questions. F-3. Where is it stated that consciousness is a requirement for a human being in any stage of development to be considered to be a human being? What source does Con use to support his claim? Indeed, several of Cons sources have information that runs counter to Con's claims. F-4. How can a POTENTIAL being physically exist? Even as a new child is in the first days of their life (Con's source #4) they do physically exist. Don't they? Doesn't physical existence make them something more than just a potential being? In Round Two, Con went on to contradict his earlier claims that a child in the womb is anything more than a mere POTENTIAL human being. He states; "During the first trimester (around 12 weeks), the most a baby can develop is to the stage where the baby is 3 inches long [2]. Babies during this period can be referred to as embryos. During this time period, the baby has just begun to develop a nervous system and brain." F-5. Babies are not persons, Con? F-6. How does one get a physical measurement of '3 inches long' on a POTENTIAL human being? To the voters, I ask; "Does Con's use of the word "baby" here to describe human children in the womb not infer to you that he knows and acknowledges the fact that a child in the womb is an 'organism,' is a 'human being,' and is more than a mere POTENTIAL? To my question (#3) in round two; "3. Are voluntary abortions not intended to 'prevent the births' of the children aborted?" Con answered; "Yes, abortions are meant to prevent births, but this is completely different from what my opponent has underlined in the definition of genocide. The key word here is VOLUNTARY, meaning that the mother requested the abortion. No measures are IMPOSED to prevent birth. " It's clear that Con did not understand my question or argument. In my argument, the alleged crime is against the child and is perpetrated by the mother. Of course her actions are voluntary. It is alleged by Pro that the women who voluntarily abort their young are part "of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority [1]" as quoted and linked to in R1.So, to explain it further for Con. It is the mothers themselves who are imposing (taking) the measures "to prevent the births" of existing human beings within the group [1]. At the end of R2, Con claims to "have shown why abortion is not murder and how genocide is. Thus, it is very clear that abortion is not a crime against humanity and genocide is. I look forward to my opponent’s response."I ask Con again. "If it can be established that a human being's life, personhood and basic human rights begins at conception, "Legalized Abortion would then be the Greatest Crime against Humanity in the History of Mankind."According to this source, there have been over 1.24 BILLION children aborted worldwide since 1980. [9] Civility is not easy to maintain as Pro considers the denials such as Con's (above) to be contributive to those numbers. [1] Crimes Against Humanity - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Elective Abortion - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [3] Ethnic - http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [4] National - http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [5] Dred Scott - https://supreme.justia.com... [6] Zygote (organism) - http://www.plannedparenthood.org... [7] Embryo (organism) - http://www.plannedparenthood.org... [8] Fetus (organism) - http://www.plannedparenthood.org...[9] Abortion Counter - http://www.numberofabortions.com...