Abortion should be illegal

Thank you Nuevo for participating in this debate. Conduct- As I pointed out in Con's first argument (Contention V) there was a direct rebuttal to my argument by claiming, . "Con has also gave this set of criteria to prove his stand which makes his claim self-refuting." This clearly violates debate rules. I would also point out that my opponents rebuttal is riddled with condescension and ad hominem against my intellect. I hope that any judges will not overlook this behavior. Qualification of Life- My opponent restated his acknowledgement of "the ever-changing nature of science". My point about this statement was to question Con's motives in regards to this statement and its relevance to the debate. The only make this statement is to undermine the credibility of my argument about the scientific evidence that proves the humanity of the unborn. V1- Sensitivity My opponent is in this argument is essentially saying that because a fetus lacks the advanced mechanisms to respond to stimuli, it doesn't meet the criterion to be considered a living organism. This is flawed logic. As I stated in my opening argument, level of development does not determine personhood. Embryos at conception lack advanced systems of responding to stimuli because those systems are in development. Now this does not mean an embryo lacks the ability to respond to stimuli on a cellular level through mechanotransduction and chemotransduction. These cellular capabilities are actually what allows the embryo to maintain its homeostasis which is another qualification for life. Much like corral and plants, an unborn baby does not have pain receptors yet they are still considered living organisms. My opponent might point out that humans are different from things like plants and therefore an embryo may be living but not a human. But the difference is that an embryo has human DNA. This means it is in the process of developing the full capabilities of its sensory and other bodily functions as we all are until our mid 20's. Con's argument here is selecting an arbitrary stage of development to determine personhood. V2 Reproduction- Con argues that there is no development of reproductive systems in the embryonic stage. This is false. The embryo contains human DNA which directs the development of the human body. It is true that reproductive organs are not formed, however the process of forming them is still underway because the development of the human organism is underway and the biological systems required to support a fully functioning reproductive system. Once again this argument is arbitrarily selecting a stage of development of a natural process to determine human rights. 1) Bodily Autonomy- My opponent suggests that my analogy was flawed because, if the owner of the house invites someone in then they are not trespassing. That was the point of my analogy and while it was not A perfect one, it illustrates the immorality of giving consent and then claiming it wasn't. A mother gives consent through engaging in sexual intercourse because the mother knows the risks and the natural biological function of the behavior. She not only invites a human being to form inside her but forces that person to form inside her. Therefore she relinquished her bodily autonomy. I suppose a better analogy would be the mother forcing the baby onto her boat and then once out at sea pushing the baby out because they are infringing on her right to her private property. This analogy would fix the particular problem with my previous analogy but both analogies were simply used to point out the immorality in giving consent and revoking it, knowing that to do so would result in the death of a human being. The mother can exercise her bodily autonomy prior to impregnation and birth. The exception of course is rape in which case we should punish the rapist not the innocent baby. I've proved that the life of an unborn is worth as much as any other human. One cannot kill their child outside the womb (even if they are a product of rape) simply because the child is a physical or financial burden therefore we should not be allowed to do so while the baby is inside. 2) Violation of Human Rights- My opponent argues that the woman's right to bodily autonomy is equal to the baby's life/bodily autonomy. I agree to some extent. The problem though is that their bodily autonomy is in conflict. The baby's bodily autonomy in this case supersedes because the baby's bodily autonomy is directly connected to the baby's life and in 98% of cases also because the mother gave consent through choosing to be sexually active with all the potential consequences of that action. 3) Desperate Mothers- A) Life for Life: My opponent says that since my statistic is from a long time ago it is out of date because science has advanced. I'm not sure why this would be the case. My point in using the statistic was to highlight the fact that only 39 women died as a result of illegal abortion. I already acknowledged that less women die from legal a abortion when I introduced the 2012 statistic that only 4 women died from legal abortions in that year. The reason I used the 1972 statistic was not to emphasize that 24 women died of legal abortion it was to point out that even in 1972 when legal abortions only happened half as often, (1) only 39 women died as opposed to the 1 million babies that now die each year due to legal abortion. If we are valuing the lives of the unborn and the mothers equally (which we ought to because I have already explained how they are living human being) then we should logically be putting a stop to a practice that takes a million lives per year and find other ways to save the lives of mothers dying of unsafe illegal abortions in other ways or accept the deaths of less than a 100 a year to save the million. This is especially true when you take into account my point about the fact that the mother is knowingly choosing behavior that could put her bodily autonomy at odds with another individual (her unborn baby). So, no that's not 10,00 women violated by my conservative estimate because only 2% percent of those did not give inherent consent and for those 2% that were raped we should punish for the crime where punishment is due, not upon those forced into a hard situation (unborn baby). B) Protection of offender over victim: Con's only argument is that I can't prove the rights of the unborn so the mother's rights supersede. The problem is obvious, I have indeed proven the humanity and the individuality of the unborn and therefore their basic rights. My point stands. 4) Jobless Teens- My opponent restated that 11% of people who would have economically benefited from having abortion would suffer. I disagree because as my opponent concedes, adoption is a viable solution that takes into account the right to the life for the baby. This argument to is dependent on the false notion that an unborn baby is not a human being and therefore falls with the rest of Con's argument. Conclusion- There is really no argument that the embryo at conception is a distinct living organism. To say otherwise is to take a misguided view of the universal traits of life and defy science. It is also a human as it is in the process of developing human systems, just as I am at 20 years old, still developing my human systems. We must define human life and we must rely on scientific consensus to do so. We must then protect that life even if it has consequences for individuals who chose the actions that put their rights in conflict with another's. I have proven in this debate that the best way to uphold human rights is to ban the practice of murdering the unborn. I have also done so without using a condescending tone to belittle my opponent and I have followed all the rules of the debate. I thank those who judge this debate and urge them to uphold life and freedom for those with no voice. Vote Pro. 1)https://en.m.wikipedia.org...