Abortion should be illegal in the United States

"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. "" 1) Your definition of individual is the adjective form. We are using individual in the noun form. Also, my definition of individual is the biological definition, yours is not. So, my definition is the one that shall be used for the debate. 2) My definition of individual is "a single organism capable of independent existence. " A person in a coma/ a person on life support would still be an individual according to my definition contrary to the opinion of my opponent. The most fundamental difference between a fetus and a person on life support is that the fetus is entirely dependent on the host woman's body to survive. Only the host woman can carry the fetus. If she takes the fetus out, it will die. She can not hire another woman to carry the fetus, as it will die. The fetus is exclusively dependent on the one specific host woman. But this is not true for the person on life support. The person on life support can be taken off life support for a set amount of time and still survive. The person on life support can taken off life support and transferred to another life support machine. 3) Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being. --- I have proved that my definitions of humans/ individuals fit the criteria for every single person that has already born. I have also proved that a fetus is not a human. "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. " - This point is void. I proved above that my definition makes more sense and it works. "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. " -A burglar can get money by begging on the streets or even (gasp! ) getting a real job. A woman has no other options to protecting her life besides abortion. "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. " -Umm. .. I think dieing less often would be an improved life. Once again, thanks for proving my point. "Burglarly thing" -The whole burglarly topic has gone out of control, I will let the voters decide who won the arguments on this topic and if it is even relevant to the debate. "Parenthood . .. By these definitions, a pregnant woman is a parent, and thus abortion is indeed applied to parenthood. My point stands firm. " -By these definitions only a pregnant woman is a parent. The man would not be considered a parent. You can't have a baby to have an abortion without a man (considering the baby was not conceived through a lab) and a woman, which is two people. But by your definition, only the woman is a parent. So your point about parenthood is void. "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. " -Yes, they do deal with the right to privacy, thanks for the info. Then you stated "however the right to Life supersedes the implicit right to privacy. " You have to prove this to void my points about the 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments. You did not prove it, you just simply stated your opinion. Since my opponent left my points about the 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments uncontended, they stand. "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. " 1) I have proved above that my definition of individual is not sneaky and does work. 2) You either helped support my arguments or didn't attempt to refute them for the most part. 3) You didn't really put forth any arguments. Almost all your characters were spent attempting to refute my arguments. "If I can show that a fetus is human, I will also prove that it is a person, and thus entitled to the rights provided and protected in the Bill of Rights. " 1) You failed to show that a fetus is a human. 2) I have shown that a fetus is not a human due to the definitions of human being: any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens. And individual: a single organism capable of independent existence. And organism: a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes. A fetus does not fit any of these definitions, so it is not a human. 3) Since you failed to show that a fetus is a human/person, you have failed to show that it is entitled to the rights provided and protected in the Bill of Rights. My opponent pretty much attempted one argument through the whole debate, which is that a fetus is a human. I have proven that a fetus is not a human.