Unborn human beings should have a legal right to live.

“I apologize if any of my comments we're pejorative but I wasn't the only one my opponent states how he wasn't expecting such a bad argument from me which as well is pejorative. So the opponent as well did not obey his regulations” I don’t want to get into a side argument about this, but since you accused me of breaking my rule, I’ll go ahead and defend myself. Calling an argument bad and calling your opponents “anti-choice” or conversely “anti-life” are not the same thing. One is aimed at the argument. The other is aimed at the person. I did not the break the rule regarding name calling, when I called my opponent's argument “bad” just as my opponent did not break my rule when he called my anti-abortion contentions “bizarre”, ”insulting” and “idiotic.” He only crossed the line when he called those who hold my position “anti-choice.” “It is true that a fetus is the result of two human parents. (I will not call a fetus is an offspring because an offspring is a persons child and a fetus according to the proof I have presented today a fetus can not be considered a child since it isn't a human being.” “Offspring-the product of the reproductive processes of an animal or plant”- Merriam Webster The fetus is the product of reproductive processes of two human parents, ergo he or she is human offspring and therefore a human being. Now in regards to comparing the fetus to dandruff, my opponent stated “But the fetus is also part of one human beings body just like a dandruff and a fetus and dandruff present achanceof actually becoming a human being not a 100% security.” A fetus is not a part of the mother like the dandruff is. He or she is not even part of the mother at all. He or she is attached to the mother. He or she has his or her own genetic code, his or her own blood type, and if the fetus is a boy, he has a different genitalia than the mother. Dandruff is dead skin cells that, when alive, helped form together to make up the whole being of the mother. Every cell of the prenate, from the zygote to the fetus, formed together to create the whole of the fetus. That is because the fetus is a separate human being that, while yes is temporarily dependent upon the mother to live, is still not a part of her. If he or she was, then we would be detached organs. “Actually scientifically speaking yes a newborn not only has personality but shows it as well. A newborn is considered a newborn from the day it is born till the age of 12 months.[2] Therefor at the age of 2 months the newborn starts to show social grins to familiar faces. At the age of 4 months the newborn starts to imitate those around him. Stick you're tongue out at him/her and he/she might do the same. At the age of 7 months the newborn will raise his hands for you to hold him/her and carry him/her as well he/she will be only grabbing his/her favorite toys. At the age of 11 months the newborn will be able to say "mama" even though the newborn first word may differentiate according to his surroundings. This means that the age of 11 months this newborn will start to practice one of his/her rights, this right that we all enjoy the freedom of speech. At the age of 12 months the newborn will have the motor and communication skills to give the one's he/she loves and is familiar with a kiss. All of these actions shows that newborn know who they love and who they prefer.[3] This shows that they contain human characteristics. By all these actions the newborn is showing love to those he is familiarized with yet the opponent believes this is a bad argument?” It’s a bad argument because before those two months the newborn cannot do any those things. Yet no one would take away his or her legal right to live before those two months. “Also a baby can practice his freedom of religion at any age, when I was 5 months I was baptized in the "holy" waters even though I was only 5 months and was not aware of what was going on I was still practicing my freedom of religion. So yes a newborn does put some of his rights from the first amendment in action.” That’s more of an exercise of freedom on part of the parents than anything else. The new born is not choosing to be baptized therefore he or she is not “putting his rights into action.” His or her parents are putting their rights into action. “The opponent rebuts my contention by attempting to make some sort of similarities between a hospital and a mother yet doctors and nurses get a paycheck to save life's it is their job to help any person's that life's may be in danger that comes to them. It isn't the job of a mother to do so.” Actually both mothers and fathers are morally and legally obligated to provide some care for their offspring. Even in regards to adoption, the parents are still obligated to keep the child safe until they bring him or her to his or her new guardian[1.] Also my opponent failed to rebut my other criticism of the bodily autonomy argument. That abortion does not merely involve letting the fetus die. It involves initiating homicide against the fetus either by poisoning or by dismemberment. Purposely killing another human being is different than letting him or her drown. The fetus’ attachment to the mother is a natural, involuntary, primary characteristic, and one cannot initiate homicide against people for such characteristics. “The opponent nor Bernard seem to understand that with better treatment for abortions through medical attention the chances of woman dying are really low. While doing it illegal woman still run a much bigger chance of death, it doesn't matter if the number of woman dying from illegal abortions is ten million or simply one it's still a death we can prevent by treating them thoroughly.” I’ve already proved that abortion is an act of homicide. It is not justifiable to make an initiation of homicide legal simply to make it safer. There’s no such thing as a safe homicide, a human being is always killed. Also, as I pointed out earlier, there are countries in which abortion is illegal in most circumstances (such as Ireland, Chile, Mauritius) yet they still have the lowest maternal death rates. In the second round, I gave my main two contentions that led to the conclusion that is the subject of this debate. While my opponent has given his objections to my second contention as well as my conclusion, I have rebutted all of them. Thus my whole case still stands. For my closing remarks, I would like to say something about another cause that I’ve worked in and how it relates to this. One of the things that my opponent and I have in common is that we are both answered "con" to the death penalty. In fact, I was one of those who wrote to my governor encouraging him to sign a bill that would abolish the death penalty in Illinois. The bill passed, but unfortunately the death penalty wasn’t fully abolished. The one that was carried out in prisons was abolished, yes, but the one that is carried out in clinics and hospitals against human beings, whose only crime was existing at an inconvenient time, still remains. Therefore I will work to abolish that death penalty as well, because unborn human beings should have a legal right to live. I appreciate my opponent’s participation in this debate though we disagree. Vote pro. [1.] http://supreme.justia.com...