Abortion should be illegal

I haven't been on debates for some time now and it is a joy to see this one come to an end. Also, my sources are pasted in the comments section to maximize my character usage. Let us advance! Conduct Pro accuses me of using a derogative tone and assaulting his intellect. I simply stated in my R3 how the affirmative side builds his contentions by starting off with fabricated assertions then using it to form his arguments. I encourage the judges to examine how Pro made up his claims about mine and see for themselves that what I did was to eradicate any fabrications and uphold the truth, which I advocate greatly. This is a greater violation of conduct compared to mine. I even suggested that Pro should contact me on the comments section to clarify things so that he won't commit the same faulty mistakes. However, this attitude continued even in this round, accusing and exaggerating in equal measure . Also, humor shows a debater's tone, without it, the debate will be monotonous. I read DDO's very own debate tutorial ('cause RoyLatham was there) and it highly encouraged tone. But my opponent treated it as being condescending, then treated my whole R3 as condescending as well. I challenge the public to read my R3, do it seven times, and comment if I used condescension for the whole round. V. Question of Life Pro claims that we base on scientific data for the debate. Yet, he fails to do so. On the other hand, I have proven scientifically, supported by two neutral articles of medical organizations [1], that an embryo is not human. Pro states that at the moment of conception, the embryo is a living human being. But, embryo's can't adapt to the environment until the 20th week post-fertilization. [1] They also don't have reproductive systems until the end of the first trimester, which Pro also conceded to be true. [3] Reproduction and sensitivity are criteria for life, and an embryo fails to meet them. But, Pro argues that level of development doesn't mean personhood, that an embryo can be human, so it's human. Fallible. A sperm cell has the ability to become human, it's still in an arbitrary stage, right? An egg cell, too. And, it's also in a temporal standstill. But, is it human? No, there's a fine line between can-be human and is-already human. Also, Pro states: "Con argues that there is no development of reproductive systems in the embryonic stage. .. is arbitrarily selecting a stage of development of a natural process to determine human rights. " This is Pro's whole rebuttal in 'Reproduction'. Notice how he misunderstood my contentions, then formed a rebuttal out of it. In my R3, I stated that there are no developments of a reproductive system during the embryonic stage, but I didn't state there are no developments all throughout as Pro seem to believe. If Pro just clarified things in the comments section, this wouldn't've happened. By that, Pro's rebuttal shall be hollow and negated. I. Bodily Autonomy I thank Pro for renewing his analogy. However, it falls short at the same level as his former ones. Pro keeps on stating that the mother's right is infringed by the embryo or fetus and surrenders her bodily autonomy. Fallacious. How can a non-human multicellular diploid eukaryotic organism which dependently survives, infringe the rights of a healthy living human female aware of her capabilities and complete dominion over the unborn? It simply can't. The mother doesn't relinquish her bodily autonomy in the process, as innate as it is. Again, the mother can abort the unborn under this principle for it is her own body and she determines what to do with it. And, the embryo isn't human to start with, without rights and humanity and bodily autonomy. Pro never "proved that the life of an unborn is worth as much as any other human. " I don't even know why he thought so, either. II. Violation of Rights "My opponent argues that the woman's right to bodily autonomy is equal to the baby's life/bodily autonomy. " I didn't. Also, he excessively used the term 'baby' in this particular rebuttal which is wrong. The public should replace the word 'baby' to 'embryo' or 'fetus' then read it again. It makes a big difference. The matter in question is not of the living baby, take note. Moreover, Pro hasn't refuted as to how indistinguishable the value of fundamental human rights are. If the government criminalized abortion, they'd be infringing the rights of the mother to freedom and choice, which is equally important for the state to treat and protect. The only thing he argued was that the fetus' self autonomy supersedes that of the mother's. But, I already negated Pro's claim of the fetus' life. Again, the fetus isn't human. No life, no self autonomy. Thinking otherwise would be illogical. III. Desperate Mothers A. Life for life Pro omits the importance of the advancement of abortion through time. He believes his outdated source still stands proudly, while asking "why would this would be the case". Now, consider the progress humanity had formed in abortion from 1973 to 2017. Back then, knowledge wasn't that available and the studies were still at a low stage. Pro argued that even while legal abortion was available back then, some women died. But now, with technological advancements, refined medical studies, and growing awareness, the present is arguably safer than the past. B. Protection of offender over victim Pro claims that I lacked refutation on this round and he has proven the humanity of the fetus, therefore his argument stands. Actually, the only thing comparable to this claim was his belief that the embryo was human at the moment of conception which I already negated with strong scientific backing. He keeps sticking to old illogical contentions which I already have refuted at earlier chapters inside the rounds. IV. Jobless Teenagers Again, Pro wrote 'baby'. When reading Pro's rebuttals, please change it to 'fetus' or 'embryo', it changes everything. This is not an appeal to semantics. The real matter in question is of the embryo or fetus, not the living baby. Also, Pro stated that since I conceded to consider adoption as a viable option, my argument falls along with it. This is utterly flawed and illogical. Yes, I acknowledge adoption. But, I did not concede to it as a greater alternative for abortion. Moreover, in conceding, my argument does not fall. A simple recognition does not do harm in any extent. But, a largely misunderstood idea certainly does. Again, teenagers should prioritize their careers, health, family, and freedom. There is still a lot to explore during this period. Upholding the rights of women to abortion can massively aid the female population into their self-improvement and happiness. Conclusion: I have strongly negated, with scientific documents, how an embryo is not a human being at the moment of conception, as opposed to Pro's belief. It cannot reproduce and adapt to environment, which makes its life invalid. I also debunked the notion that personhood is not in the level of development. The stages of development strongly matter, of course. I certainly recognize how important the rights of women to freedom and choice are, along with their bodily autonomy over the unborn. Rights are equally important and violation of these rights are as horrendous when done to other rights. I have actual testimonies of women undergoing illegal abortion and getting nothing but pain and danger. I also explained how Pro's outdated source proves little of its message compared to my more current sources. And, I also believe that teenagers, as growing adults, should prioritize their career and life. They should be given freedom to explore the world and build their lives as how they vision it. More importantly, I have never made any fabrications to deliberately inflate my rebuttals and exaggerate on accusations. I proudly affirm my position and negate the affirmative.