Resolved: Social abortions ought not be legal in the US.

1. I accepted Pro's evaluation standard of justice, but I clearly did not accept "human worth" as the single value criteria. Why not simply go a small step further and declare "banning abortion" as the value criteria? I plainly reasserted human rights as additional value criteria in the evaluation of whether justice is done. To suppose that the "human worth" is the only criteria for justice could lead to the nonsensical conclusion that something manifestly unjust was just. Pro must defend his criteria by which justice is to be evaluated. Whether human rights are granted by government or inherent in the nature of mankind and independent of government is a separate issue. They need not be assumed to be derived from government. 2. The definition of "human being" is not properly constructed from the independent definitions of the words "human" plus "being" as Pro has done. Pro's error is analogous to the error of attempting to construct the the definition of "jelly bean" from the independent definitions of "jelly" and "bean." (Sorry, it is the best example I could think of on short notice.) The correct definition of "human being" is obtained by looking up the phrase "human being" which yields, "Any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage." http://www.wordwebonline.com... Clearly a fertilized egg consisting of a non-differentiated sphere does not possess superior intelligence, articulated speech, and erect carriage. Therefore a fertilized egg is not a human being. 3. "My opponent mistakes my argument again. I was merely making an analogy that it would be wrong to rape a rapist because that is violation of human worth." No, I correctly understood your argument. It is the course of making the argument that Pro implicitly acknowledges that there is critical difference between a fetus and a child. If a fetus and child were human beings of equal status, then Pro could not possible grant an exception that allowed a fetus to be aborted in the case of rape. A child would never be allowed to be "aborted", but Pro grants that the fetus can be aborted. Thus Pro must be implicitly assuming in allowing the exception that the fetus is not a human being. Pro made the argument that this is not about rights, but that argument was rebutted on the grounds that justice cannot be evaluated without general consideration of rights as well as "human worth." pro did not counter that rebuttal. 4. The impact of the argument with respect to the resolution pertains to whether or not a fertilized egg is a human being. If it is in doubt whether a fertilized egg is a human being, the test can be applied as to whether society treats a fertilized egg as a human being. The argument shows that since none of the ceremonies and traditions applied to human beings are applied to fertilized eggs, it is therefore clear that society does not consider a fertilized egg to be a human being. Therefore, the criteria of "human worth" does not apply and the resolution fails. Whether the fertilized egg was aborted naturally or not has no relevance, because the same traditions regarding the death of humans are ordinarily applied whether the death is from natural causes or not. 5. "The right to govern a body only exists because we have human worth. Therefore, the standard of my criterion supersedes this attack." No, asserting that the standard of human worth applies does not of itself tell us whether the application of the standard to the fertilized egg supersedes its application to the woman. The fertilized egg is not a human being, so therefore the woman's worth supersedes. However, if the fertilized egg is deemed a human being, it has no feelings, memories, or cognition, whereas the woman does. Therefore, the woman's worth is greater. A violent act should be weighed in accordance with the level of violence. A fertilized egg can feels nothing, therefore the level of violence is nothing. 6. Pro did not rebut the argument that the fact of illegal abortions constitutes greater injustice than making them illegal, therefore it stands. 7. "since my opponent has not made a right's distinction in this point, do not make him make one in the next round." I have no idea what you are talking about. Is it conventional in LD debate to talk to the judges rather than to your opponent? "Basically my opponent's logic means that it would be justified to kill a child even after he/she was born, because he/she could not be properly cared for." That claim is made with logical argument. I have not idea how you came up with that, nor could I be expected to know. 8. "I never argued societal solvency. I merely argued that there would be a societal stigmatization. Basically I am saying that undermining the human worth of an unborn child created an unraveling of societal morality." Precisely what I asked for was an example of the "unraveling of social morality" that has occurred as a traceable consequence of abortion having been legalized for the past fifty years ago. If there is nothing that can be identified as a consequence, then Pro should acknowledge that fact. ---------------------------- "My opponent has not provided a value structure. For this, he cannot win the round. I did place a note at the top of my case warning non-LD'ers. " I must admit I am fascinated by LD rules. Apparently one can completely fail to respond to an argument (6), not know how to look up a definition, and claim arbitrary nonsensical value criteria -- yet still claim victory. Interesting. I do, however, point out that a reasonable interpretation of Pro's offer "if you do not know LD and would till like to do it, I have no problem with that" is that under those circumstances reason would be allowed to prevail.