Abortion should be illegal in the United States

I thank you, Nags, for a quick response. Nags said: "-No. My opponent has made a definition up for me, which I do not accept. " I apologize, I was making a guess based on what other abortionists had said. Nags said: "-My definition of human being is: "any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens. " I agree with this definition. However, I do NOT agree with the following definition of 'individual', which does not apply to human beings. Why? go back to my previous analogy (which my opponent disregarded as 'irrelevant'), the one referring to the boy who was mangled in a car accident. The boy, like a fetus, is a biologically dependent life form, as in a life form that cannot maintain its own biological processes without outside aid. So, it is logical to conclude that my opponent's definition of 'individual' does not apply to humans, as humans (in the boy's case) can be biologically dependent. Nags, you must realize that whatever definition of 'individual' or 'human' you use that excludes fetuses will also exclude others who are clearly human. Again I say that viability cannot be used to determine humanity. My point stands. A fetus is a human. Here is a more correct definition of an individual: "Inseparable; being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole. " . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Before my opponent points out that a fetus is not 'whole' in the sense that it does not have all its proper parts or components (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...), remember that there are many unfortunate human beings who are also not whole in that sense. The meaning of 'whole' in the definition of 'individual' is: 'consisting of an undivided unit' (the word 'indivisible' before the word indicates the meaning). See the above link for the definition source. Nags said: "The fetus only has the potential to be a human being, it never just is a human being. Because it is unable to sustain independent life, and it uses the organ systems of the host woman, it is, physically and hormonally, part of the woman's body. " As I have shown, the fetus is indeed a human being by my opponent's definition of 'human'. I have also shown that just because a life cannot exist independently doesn't prove it isn't human. The fetus is physically attached to the mother's body, but the fetus is separate from the mother's body by its own (unquestionably human) DNA, thus the fetus cannot possibly be part of the woman's body. Nags said: "-Equivalent example? I beg to differ. Burglary is defined as. .. " Burglary is defined as "the act of breaking and entering a dwelling at night to commit a felony (as theft) ; broadly : the entering of a building with the intent to commit a crime" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Note also that his source says that there is 'usually' no victim present during a burglary, not 'always'. Nags said: "How are abortion and burglary equivalent? " Abortion before Roe v. Wade and burglary are equivalent in the fact that they are (or were) illegal, and those performing them could potentially be harmed. Nags said: "Abortion should be legal because a woman's life is at risk, among other reasons. " That is rarely the case (see my source for the previous round). A burglar's life could also be at risk if he is starving and needs to break in to get food. However, there are other options available to both the burglar and the woman instead of breaking the law. Nags said: "A burglar knowingly commits a crime under his/her own will knowing that his/her life is at risk. A mother who is raped does not conceive a baby under her own will. Your example and logic is ridiculous. " Your argument seems to imply that none of the women who got abortions before Roe v. Wade were aware it was illegal, and that they did not do it under their own free will (absurd implications). If you do not know a certain action could put your life at risk, then it is too bad for you. As I showed in round two, it is irrelevant if a woman is raped. My analogy is valid, and the point stands, not even shaken. Nags said: "-Actually, it does. It shows that deaths from abortions decreased after Roe vs. Wade. Thank you for proving my point. " My source shows that there were less deaths from abortion after Roe v. Wade, but that was not your original point. You said that access to abortion improved women's lives. I said that the legalization of abortion did not decrease the number of women dying from it. Look at my source again. It shows a chart indicating the number of women that died from abortions from 1941 to 1980. It shows the number of recorded deaths caused by abortion decreased because of better medical technology and the use of penicillin and sulfa, before Roe v. Wade. The legalization or access to abortion had nothing to do with it. Here is a quote from the source itself: "In 1973 [the year Roe v. Wade legalized abortion] there should have been a really sharp drop in women dying. The chart, however, shows that there was no such drop. The line didn't even blip. The previous rate of decline actually slowed, to flatten out in the late 70s and 80s. According to the U. S. vital statistics, as anyone can see, legalization of abortion did not save almost any women's lives. " Nags said: "-No, slaves were counted as 3/5 as a person, not 2/3. This was because of the Three-Fifths Compromise (2) not because of viability. Please learn history before you start preaching it. " I deeply apologize for the inaccuracy. I was relying solely on my memory from a book I read years ago. I was trying to make a point about mankind attempting to de-humanize his fellows throughout history, with slaves 150 years ago, and with fetuses today. Nags said: "-It isn't applied to parenthood. Parenthood is different than a woman carrying a fetus. So the 13th amendment does count as a constitutional reason on why a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. " Parenthood: the state of being a parent. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Parent:1 a: one that begets or brings forth offspring b: a person who brings up and cares for another. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Now let's compare these definitions to pregnancy: the state/quality of being pregnant. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Pregnant: containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... By these definitions, a pregnant woman is a parent, and thus abortion is indeed applied to parenthood. My point stands firm. Nags said: "My opponent did not even try to refute my points about the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. " I apologize, but as I said earlier, I ran out of characters. Each of those arguments deal with the right to privacy, however the right to Life supersedes the implicit right to privacy. Nags said: "My opponent's whole debate centers on a fetus being a human being, which it is not. " On the contrary, I have proven otherwise. Nags said: "My opponent has failed to prove that a fetus is a human being, and I have proved that a fetus is not a human being. All my points stand, my opponent has none. " Actually, I believe the exact opposite is true. My opponent tried to exclude the unborn as human with a sneaky definition of the word 'individual', which I have shown cannot apply to human beings and is thus illegitimate. Every one of my opponent's arguments for abortion have been easily answered with logic and clear facts. He has failed utterly to so much as ruffle any of my own arguments. No! I am nearly out of characters. I have a great deal more to say and address. Anyway, this has been fun, Nags. Would you like to try this again in a longer debate?