Resolved: Abortion Laws violate Human Rights Law

It was without a doubt a challenge and I extend my gratitude for his time and effort to make this a great debate. Now on to my final attack! “If human rights were intrinsic (naturally occurring, essential) then it would be pointless to write down and enforce something that should be natural” It is all well and fair to believe that human rights are something that is intrinsic, but one easily forgets that men and women all over have their rights taken away from them. It is unfortunate but it is a fact of life, that the world is a cruel place filled with competition. If one can better his own situation at the expense of others he will easily do so unless he is a strong individual. An example of this is the killing of female babies in India, where females are considered a financial burden and are often killed at birth by their own parents alleviate their own financial burden. My opponent said “If human rights are bestowed by humans, they can be taken away by humans. ” This is true around the world, they can be taken away by humans if no one enforces them. Many wars have been fought in the human effort to enforce it (Balkan Wars anyone? ). What makes human rights universal is that humanity will strive to suppress those who try to break those fundamental rights, that those who believe in those rights will enforce them at all cost. It is the human effort to force dictators to provide these basic rights, even if it goes against the human nature to risk one’s own life for the good of others. “The UN document leaves no room for a societal interpretation of Human Rights when it uses words like “Inalienable. ” I unfortunately have to disagree on this statement my opponent posted due to the fact the majority of our debate was whether or not a zygote was considered a human. It gives the world of social interpretation, which improves as the world views and standards progress. Education is a basic human right, yet one can argue what level of education is mandatory by people. And it is true that this makes human rights subjective to some extent, it would be impossible for them not to” but that doesn’t mean that it cannot become universal. If you refer to the definition posted in an earlier part of the debate, all that requires something to become universal is that they are applicable to everyone. The current human rights of the UN is very broad in the sense of what level of standards must be set, but they lack subjections that most other human works do due to the different opposing viewpoints cancelling each other. Now as for the DNA defining a person, what would you consider a deceased person? A deceased person such as one who has been incinerated has no trace of DNA. Should he be considered a pile ash and have no right of passing of rights. Of course not. It is not the potential to become something that makes someone human. The potential of a zygote to become human does not make it human, the potential for a comatose person to come back to consciousness does not make them human. What makes a human can be summarized in one definitive trait that no other species can replicate. A human contains basic functions, such as having human organ systems, most definitively a brain. No other species has the brain capacity or ability like ours. No human comatosed, infant or slave lacked a brain. Zygotes do not have a brain. It is the brain that establishes our ability for reasoning and logic that allows us to preform basic living functions. This goes deep into the debate whether and AI could be considered a living thing. If a human had a robotic brain implanted in its body, would it still be considered human? A dead human “had a brain” hence it was considered human. It is this simple organ that makes and defines what is special about a human. A person on life support cannot function on their own, otherwise they would not be on life support. This argument was one that was constantly used in our debate countless of times. It is clear that a person on life support cannot function on their own accord, but if one were to cut off life support and that person were to die off they would still be considered as a human A zygote on the other hand would not, for it has not brain. As to cloning, if we perfect it, clones would be independent of the parent human. They would be capable of their own independent thought. If they originate in a lab or a womb, does that bestow human rights? I argue no, and origination is irrelevant. The statement my opponent made completely and utterly contradicts himself. For starters the last line implies that the origin of where a human comes from is irrelevant. In this case the fact that a zygote from a womb is irrelevant implies that it is not necessarily human. This is where cloning makes his argument contradict himself more. Cloning does not use 2 gametes but rather it uses the stem cells to recreate itself. When would that clone cell be considered officially human? The moment it starts to replicate like a zygote? Should this unethical experiment not be stopped even though that stem cell is developing into a human? Of course it should, as long as the created human is incapable of thought and emotions. People on life support are often let go because they have no chance of regaining consciousness. As to cloning, if we perfect it, clones would be independent of the parent human. They would be capable of their own independent thought. This is fatal to my opponent’s argument because this proves that he is accepting independent thought as what makes someone human. He explicitly states that they would be “capable of their own independent thought” Thus massively contradicting himself. So in conclusion my stance of the issue is: 1)The Human Rights are universal and fundamental to all living humans2) These rights are created by society but are implemented universally and cannot be changed by a individual.3) For something to be considered human it must have or have had a brain.4) A zygote for the reason above is not considered human. Finally I apologize for the tardiness of this final round due to the fact I have been very sick and have been focusing on getting better. I hope you enjoy this final round as much as I enjoyed yours. It has a sketchy start due to the fact I was formulating my ideas as I was writing but I finished strong due to some analyst. I thank you for an excellent debate, I have no personal attachment to this issue, so if you would ever like to debate again I would be glad to. And once again thank you for your time. Final attack complete XD!