Abortion is generally an immoral act

Regarding chromosomes: I refined my statement in the last round so this rebuttal is essentially against my original claim which I revoked. My revised claim was: "A human is a thing with two sets of 23 chromosomes (save for some malady). People with down syndrome would have two pairs of 23 chromosomes if the separation of the sister chroma-tides had gone normally. " //you must also exclude newborns and toddlers. // This is false. Your claim was that humans have the ability to reason and comprehend the universe. Newborns and Toddlers both can. When a baby walks around it is reasoning and comprehending the universe. When a toddler sticks it's finger in a pot of water and it gets burnt, it is reasoning and comprehending the universe. But if we ignore the aforementioned things, if I must exclude toddlers and newborns so must you since it is your definition. You would then have to concede that toddlers, newborns and fetus' are not humans which I doubt you want to do. So here you are stuck in a double bind. We use your definition and either fetus' aren't humans since they do not fit your definition, and let me say, you never contested this fact, or fetus', newborns and toddlers aren't humans. //. .. perform functions like reasoning and comprehending. // But fetus' have not developed this yet. So your own definition is disproving your argument. I never said that newborns/toddlers are less important. You are strawmaning my argument. My argument was as follows: "Now regarding my opponent's claim. My opponent claims that humans are unique because we can reason and comprehend the universe ectectect but fetus' cannot preform such functions. Thus I implore my opponent, if that is a key characteristic of a human (as he says it is) are fetus' then not human? " Now I ask, does the above statement even talk about toddlers and newborns? The answer is of course no. Identical twins: I am aware that the genes are expressed differently but the problem is that your argument is that they [fetus'] have a unique set of DNA and thus they are people. That is where the identical twins argument is from. If unique DNA is the factor then, again, identical twins are the same. It doesn't matter what the phenotype is, the genotype is the same. And regarding link [2], I cannot open it and I can't copy it because it is posted as . http://www.livescience.com......; So I don't know how one would judge this. Hair follicles: // In order for something to be alive, it must grow. Hair follicles are not living. Humans are// I never said that the hair follicle was "alive". All I was saying is that it is a human. The only thing I argued was alive was a cell in a body which is true. But my opponent has successfully refuted this argument. This point is lost. //What other mother are you talking about? A child only has one biological mother. // I thought you meant if the child was raised by someone else. That is what I was talking about. //If a mother breastfeeds,// The keyword here is IF. A mother does not need to breast feed. My claim that babies are NOT dependent like fetus' are still stands. Regarding the question, that is not the only reason for being "denying her life rights". Yes I would. They are still dependent on the same exact thing. //Congratulations, you just made the environment argument. // How so? //So apparently being connected or dependent upon the mother's body isn't the issue, what is the issue is that the child is still in the mother's womb. // False. Once the baby has passed a development point it does not need the umbilical chord. If one were to have the baby and put it in a fake womb I would no be for aborting it then for the same reason. It has literally nothing to do with the environment. It is about the developmental stage. // If your reason is viability, then this would also exclude late-term abortions from being acceptable for any reason. // Yes. I am against late-term abortions. I will admit this. So what? The time of the abortion was never specified in the resolution and I am arguing that it should be allowed before said developmental point. // she is still dependent on the umbilical cord to survive// This contradicts your previous evidence. You previously said //The unborn can be viable up to five months premature. // meaning that the child could be born and still live hence it is not totally dependent on the mother. But it should not be legal for the reason stated above. //natural inherent capacity to perform functions like reasoning and comprehending// Extend my double bind. //Blacks were considered 3/5's of a person as a compromise on how many representatives the southern states got. // Ummmm I already said something to this effect. I said: "For example blacks were part of a person but a person non-the less. " And you saying this proves they were part of a person still. //If everyone thought they were persons, slavery couldn't have been legal, because a person is a human being that's been granted basic rights// What? People acknowledge them as people, they were just lesser. Of course this is a bad way to think but it is the way people did. You also dropped Jews and Women thus I extend. //Would a woman be jusitifed in killing her two-year-old son because her family is growing up in poverty/ I already answered this. "If so the answer is no. This is again because the child is no longer directly dependent on the mother and is a person now. The answer is the same to the second question. " //This is probably because only 1% of abortions are done because of a pregnancy resulting from rape in the first place. // My evidence is saying that of the babies that are not aborted, (they were conceived via rape) only 1% of them are put of for adoption. I don't see how your evidence is relevant at all. //does not mean adoption isn't available// I'm saying that statistically speaking it is not a viable option. You would be creating more homeless people who will, as you said previously, your standard of living is reduced and "often go hungry". This fact has gone uncontested thus I extend it. Regarding the question: You are not [i] responsible [/i] but you should save the child. This would be akin to having a late term abortion which I previously said I disagreed wit. Conclusion: Even if we ignore all of my arguments against my opponent, the rape argument outweighs. This is because my opponent is resolutionally bound to defend that abortion is never right (except if the mother's life is in danger) and he just did not refute the rape argument. I have shown that the baby will grow up in poverty and, in my opponent's words, have a standard of living that is reduced and "often go hungry". Also, my opponent never responded to the following claims: " She is unfit to be a mother and the likely hood of her dropping out of school increases, she will rely on public money and will develop health problems. " [round 2] thus I extend them and I should win, if on nothing else, on this argument. Thanks.