The USFG should ban abortion

Debate Structure: Here is what has happened in this debate: Both Pro and Con presented their cases Both Pro and Con refuted each other's cases Both Pro and Con offered counter rebuttals as of the posting of this argument As of now, the debate is balanced in terms of who did what. To maintain this balance, I ask that Con waives his/her 4th round argument. If Con agrees to waive his/her fourth round, I ask the voters to not penalize Danielle for not initially following the structure of the debate. Now, on to counter rebuttals……………. Human Rights: Con asserts that because the US Constitution has been amended numerous times throughout history, the legitimacy of the right to life should be put into question. However, under this same logic, one could also question the legitimacy of the right to privacy for the mother in question too. The best we can do is look at how the text stands today. Con has ignored how the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are an integrated part of US law as part of the Organic Laws along with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights that also grant such rights. The SCOTUS decision is flawed for multiple reasons. One being that there is no Constitutional, legal, or scientific basis for the fetus to obtain the “unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” [1] Meanwhile Con hasn’t disputed the legal authority of the Declaration of Independence or the authority of the UNDHR. Con then goes to establish how the woman has the right to bodily autonomy which I accept. However, as I established in my original argument. The fetus has equal access to such rights. The Declaration of Independence declares that the right to life is inalienable, the Common Law when the Constitution was drafted made no distinction between a “person” and a human being in the sense that by definition, a person was a human being. The UNDHR which the US agreed to abide declares in Article Six that everyone has the right to be recognized as persons before law. All universally agree that the documents given legal authority by “We The People” that all human beings are entitled to rights. Con brings up euthanasia to refute the murder law argument. However, with euthanasia at least in the United States, consent has to be given by the patient in question before such can proceed [2]. With consent, the patient is giving up his/her legal rights. What makes abortion different is that the fetus is unable to give consent. In cases of rape, a person who is unable to give consent who had sex with a partner would be defined as rape. Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy as it is a basic biological fact. Biologically, sex was designed as a mechanism to procreate. Con then makes a false argument with the 13th Amendment. However, the Supreme Court has upheld the use of the draft by the US government to use able bodied men to fight wars even if the the man does not want to carry out service [3]. This is also an incorrect use of the 13th Amendment as the original intent was to abolish slavery as a practice as established in Butler vs. Perry. I would like to thank Danielle for this debate. Vote Pro Sources: [1] US Declaration of Independance [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://uscivilliberties.org...