Abortion should be made illegal in the United States.

My opponents first contention surrounds the idea of proving a fetus to be a living, independent "human" due to a fetus's ability to become self-aware, and he uses the metaphor of comparing a fetus to the states of sleep and coma. However, this is a flawed comparison. To recap the metaphor, my opponent states that since a fetus has the inherent capacity of self-awareness that it (though it may not demonstrate it until later in the pregnancy, when abortions are often prohibited), in turn, must be treated as a living person. He continues this point by comparing it to someone who is asleep or in a coma and, thus, has no self-awareness but still contains the capacity of self-awareness.However, despite the capacity for self-awareness, the fetus is still completely dependent on the mother and thus, all decisions involving the fetus, are up to the mother. Returning to my opponents example, if someone is stuck in a vegetative coma in which the likelihood of he or she ever waking up is slim to none, it is up to the surrounding family to determine whether or not to pull the plug. Self-aware or not self-aware, human or not human, in both of these cases the ability to have consciousness is irrelevant, as the lack of ability to consent and take responsibility for the organism is the main component of this debate.While my opponent may have made a good argument as to why a fetus is alive, this is simply unrelated to all of my arguments and thus refutes nothing, as all of my points still stand and are not influence by any of his arguments.Secondly, my opponent stresses for a majority of his first contention on the importance of human life. Like I previously stated, the living status of a fetus is irrelevant to the main point. However, I will refute this point as well, as human life seems to be the theme and value of his entire case.Human life has no essential purpose and the evolution of human life was nothing more than an accident. For millions of years conditions were not favorable for life and eventually, when our solar system grows old, the sun will cool, our planet will be covered in ice, and the conditions necessary to maintain life will no longer exist. Man, like many species before him, will become extinct. Life, even if it is a value, is not the most important value to consider in this debate since there are numerous justifications for termination of life. Pain and suffering, at some level, renders valueless human life. Finally, the interests of society and country have long been recognized as more than sufficient to justify the termination of life. Continuing on to my opponent's second contention, he uses ethics as his main value. However, as I will prove throughout this debate, the most ethical choice is to negate the resolution.Any topic with an emotional appeal is often argued on the terms of morals, so it is interesting that my opponent chooses ethics as his course of contention.To clarify the difference between ethics and morals, I will quote grammarist.com, a notable website that discusses the grammatical differences between misused words."Morals are the principles on which one’s judgments of right and wrong are based. Ethics are principles of right conduct."Morals are used in what is right and wrong. Ethics are about what is correct and incorrect. My opponent phrases his arguments using emotionally powered words such as "abusing certain people... the least advantaged are not only being manipulated...", which appeals to the sense of morals. However, if you read his contention looking for ethical arguments, you will be left unsatisfied, as he does not supply many. His first sub-contention, revolving around the Veil of Ignorance, can immediately be ignored as it assumes the stereotype with unsupported evidence that those seeking an abortion are in a state or irrationality. Such a stereotype should not be placed in an argument that, "one's creed, race, sex, religion, political views, and generation does not matter," as a majority, if not all of the preceding biases result in stereotypes. Thus, my opponents entire argument falls the Veil of Ignorance and thus is unethical, as it refutes itself.Continuing with that argument, even if a patient were in a state of irrationality, it would be nearly impossible to prove in an objective manner that the patient is irrational. As Ray Bradbury once said, "Insanity is relative. It depends on who has who locked in what cage." This simple yet wise quote emphasizes the fact that insanity, irratoinatlity, and reality are all entirely subjective. Reality, in which a rational person is required to be in touch with, differs from person to person and from country to country. A child, who's reality consists of an imaginary figure sliding down chimneys to deliver presents, is different than that of a child who practices Jewish holidays. Clearly, it is not in my opponents ability to determine whether or not a patient is irrational.The second sub-contention, the Ethics of Care, revolves around the idea that abortions are destroying the possibility of families and future generations. However this argument can easily be refused with simple logic: every time a woman experiences a menstrual period, she is losing an egg and thus the possibility of a family and a future generation. If you follow my opponents logic, every month, for a majority of woman on this planet, they are unethically destroying the potential of future life! Thus, it is self-evident that this argument is invalid.Thus, all of my arguments have remained unrefuted because my opponent's first contention is irrelevant to all of my arguments, and his second contention falls entirely and refutes itself.