Restricted abortion should be legal

== Rebuttals ==Right to life untenable - Nothing more need be said. I do not advocate this position and I do not need to, despite Pro's attempts to artificially tie me to it.Violinist - Pro missed the entire point. My intent was not to show that CPR law justifies "forced continuation of pregnancy." I merely brought that up to falsify Pro's claim that you could choose to unplug 2 weeks into saving the violinist without moral or legal consequences. The CPR example (and common sense) proves that's not true. It's not a legal consistency argument (as Pro says). Rather, it shows that while Pro can only give us an opinion ("I maintain that the fundamental point is the same, you can choose to disconnect"), I can provide hard evidence that people actually do not have the right to stop saving someone after consenting to start. This gets us back to my original rebuttal that Pro's "Violinist Analogy" is a poor argument. The analogy only works for an action taken against someone's will. Pregnancy from consensual sex is by definition not an action taken against someone's will (all sex involves the risk pregnancy. Therefore, consenting to sex by default consents to the risks). As such, Pro's Violinist argument does not apply and is refuted. Tacit consent - Pro counters that "Knowledge that if you commit Y, possibly outcome X, doesn't necessarily mean you consented to X by doing Y." Actually, it does. I would phrase Pro's statement like this: "Knowing that Y involves a risk of X, agreeing to Y is also agreeing to accept the risk of X." Pro's rape example is nonsensical, because by definition rape can only occur in the absence of consent (rape can never be consented to). But I would agree with Pro's tree falling example. Yes, agreeing to camp near a tree IS agreeing to the risk of the tree falling. The fact that it sounds silly makes it no less true. (In fact, many tribal cultures refuse to sleep under trees for this very reason [1]). Pro tries to equate the word "consent" to "want", e.g., consenting to pregnancy = wanting pregnancy. But that's not the case. I don't want headaches, but I'm still consenting to the risk of headaches if I take a medication that warns "side effects may include headaches." How much more so when we're talking about human life?Pregnant Women vs. Billionaires - This entire argument depends on how we decide to define personhood. A woman is only "giving up more to save less" if an embryo actually IS less. Otherwise there is no disproportionality. Pro says an embryo is not a person because he lacks self-awareness, intelligence, feeling, etc... I have shown why this personhood definition fails, and I maintain that conception is a more logically, legally, and scientifically consistent definition. As such, I believe this argument is, also, refuted. Embryo vs. 5-year old - Pro spent a lot of energy here just to avoid answering the question. Look carefully at what Pro wrote: "Con wrongly asserts that my argument here is based on who you think is a person. The argument is that you would make your decision based on various criteria, such as self awareness, intelligence, ability to feel pain..." But..... aren't these the exact criteria Pro used to define personhood in Round 2? So it seems that yes, the argument is based on who you think is a person. Pro goes on to declare victory by saying my child/spouse dilemma actually helps their case............. as long as you replace the word "child" with "100, 3 day human embryos." This is painfully obvious misdirection. Of course it helps Pro's case if Pro is allowed to change words at will! Notice again how Pro never actually answered my question - who would you save and why? Pro did not dispute my claim that multiple factors other than personhood can influence this choice, and so I consider this argument dropped. Reducto Argument - for their rebuttal, Pro lashes out against the premise that abortion is murder and accuses me with: "either Con agrees abortion is murder is a false premise, or Con still wants to leave open the option that abortion is murder..." Unfortunately for Pro, abortion being murder has nothing to do with this debate. Something being illegal does not automatically qualify it as murder. Pro continually uses this tactic of attacking claims I never made throughout this debate, and it has fallen short once again. This is the definition of a Straw Man - building up and attacking an argument Pro wishes I made, but never actually did.Law Consistency - Saying "the law could be wrong" is not a sufficient reconciliation to the inconsistency here. When trying to refute a claim X = Y, it's not enough to say "X could be wrong." You must, of course, demonstrate why X is wrong. In this case, I presented the argument that the law defines personhood as a homo sapien at any stage of development. Pro merely said "that could be wrong" but did not explain or give reason as to why. This is not an acceptable rebuttal. As far as the bodily autonomy right ("right to disconnect") vs. texting driver, I have already exposed the glaring weaknesses of Pro's bodily autonomy argument. Again and finally, I affirm that the Federal Government legally defines an embryo at any stage of development as a person with rights equal to the mother, and in order to achieve better consistency in U.S. law, abortion laws should recognize this definition as well and adjust accordingly. Personhood - here, Pro finally gets around to attacking my claim that a genetically complete homo sapien is a person. I'll address each of Pro's rebuttals:1) I cannot be begging the question since I gave clear reasons for why my premise should be accepted. 2) It's not speciesism - I'm talking about homo sapien DNA, not DNA specific to certain races or cultures.3) I never mentioned anything about God. This is irrelevant.4) This has actually happened - chimpanzees are the "something close to humans" that Pro mentions. Is Pro saying therefore that chimpanzees are people? I fail to see how this helps Pro's case.5) Aliens again? C'mon man, no one is talking about aliens here..... I hope the desperation is now obvious - Pro is having to reach for Gods, aliens, and hypothetical evolutionary mutations, in order to rebut my argument. This is because Pro cannot show that conception is less logically, scientifically, and legally consistent than their "5 criteria." My rebuttal stands.Law Consistency Argument Self Defeating - here Pro exposes the biggest contradiction of their argument. Pro says that since abortion is already legal, it should remain legal in the name of consistency. But, didn't Pro just get done arguing that the laws could be wrong in a previous paragraph? So which is it? The point is that the UVAA defines an embryo as human life with protected rights, and Roe v. Wade allows the destruction of that life. This is an inconsistency. To achieve consistency, we must either repeal UVAA or Roe v. Wade. Yet, when we weigh the logical and scientific evidence, we find that the UVAA definition of human life is a good one, and therefore it would be more reasonable to uphold UVAA and change the abortion laws.== Conclusion ==This debate comes down to one question: what is a person? Pro says it is defined with 5 criteria. I have shown why these criteria are insufficient by noting that they would qualify other groups of fully grown adult humans as "non-people." Pro has supported their argument with analogies that, when carefully examined, don't apply. In response, I offered a genetic definition of personhood that meets legal, scientific, and logical scrutiny. Pro heavily contested the legal side, but largely dropped the scientific and logical arguments. Pro has not met their burden of proof, and has not fully dealt with my definition. I ask the vote go for Con.[1] Diamond, Jared. "The World Until Yesterday." Penguin Group, New York, NY (2012), 243-244.