Abortion

I have already clarified that my case is to support all abortions with the details I specified in Round 2. For Round 3, while the Con ponders over my arguments from Round 2, I will provide rebuttals for all the reasoning he provides for his case. To start my rebuttals, I have a few problems with the Con's definitions. I only start there, because an arugment based on an inaccurate definition must give an inaccurate argument. I will provide rebuttals for both, while not going too much into semantics.~~~~~~~~~~~~ My Problems with the Con's Premise I:The Con says, "The definition of Human Rights might be debatable, but the most agreeable definition is the UN Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR)[1]. By this definition of Human Rights, we see that abortion is a violation. This is seen by observing Article II, which claims that everyone (all humans) have the rights listed in the Declaration without distinction of any kind. Article VI then says that the Government must recognize everyone (all humans) as persons. Article III says everyone has the right to Life and Liberty."I must start by saying that I have several problems with this first paragraph.First of all, the definition of Human Rights is beyond debatable, and is a very vague subject when it comes to a group such as the United Nations. If anything, it only makes sense that the target of the UDHR when it comes to Human Rights, is humans already living independently outside of a woman's body. This means that children already born and men and women of all ages are the intended target of any Human Rights Articles. Sceond of all, the amendments from the UDHR on Human Rights do not specifically support "fetus" rights. Article II of the UNDHR reads,"...birth or other status.."meaning people cannot be exempt from these human rights base on birth status, or other status. Birth status means place of birth. Even the children's version of the UDHR explains that. [1] However, if you wish to be medically correct, there's another definition for birth status:"The status of the baby at birth as represented by a code." [2].Articles III and VI define the word "everyone" presumably just as the Articles before and after them. This means that they support the rights of humans, not fetuses.It would be assumed, that with all those UDHR Articles for Human Rights, that the United Nations would support women's rights when it comes to reproductive choices! Oh, wait, they do! [3] My Problems with the Con's Premise II:In this "definition", the Con uses the 14th Ammendment of the United States Constitution to imply that it extends its protections to all humans. This is because "it never gives an end-all criteria" after defining what a citizen of the United States would be. Obviously, you can't argue with the fact that in order to be a citizen of this great country of ours, you just have to be born!We also have to look at the context of the 14th Amendment, and why it was introduced to the Bill of Rights-- so we can better understand the intended language and definitions of terms left open-ended.Read the article found here [4], you can read that the main purpose of the 14th Amendment was to nationally grant citizenship to all people in the United States, specifically current and former black slaves at the time, and grant all US citizens their rights. This means that when the 14th Amendment says,"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;",the focus on United States citizens carries over and continues to be the subject of the amendment.It's only logical that something going in a pattern will continue to go in that same pattern. It is no different when it comes to the subject of amendments in the Bill of Rights.Continuing, with my rebuttals: My Problems with the Con's Argument I:The Con goes on to state in his first argument that "The fetus is, without correction, human.". This is an unproved statement, due to an inaccurate premise. However, I will continue to refute the Con's arguments.Con says, "This is why grave robbing is illegal, and why the government can't take the organs of dead people without having their consent prior to death. Some define being alive as having a heartbeat, or a conscious. However, we live in a modern world where science, not philosophy, must be the centerpiece of our legal system.".Grave robbing and the removal of organs of dead humans without consent is not a matter of personhood, it's a matter of respect for the dead. There's no possible way to ask the dead human if you can have their property, therefore, it is illegal to take anything that belonged to them, whether it be material items or internal organs.The Con gives 12 total characteristics for what he believes characterizes living things to be. I would like to see more sources on this, and less on defintions of "humans" from five different dictionary websites.From there the Con only goes to give proof that zygotes are living organisms. This does not mean that zygotes are people. Zygotes are living cells that make up another organism, not necessarily living in entirety-- and especially not human. As a matter of fact, knowing that there are more animals on planet Earth than humans, more zygotes go on to form the fetuses of other animals, more than the number of unborn fetuses. My point is that the fact that a zygote is living doesn't make a fetus a human anymore than a living fungi cell makes a mushroom a whale. It's all in the same ballpark. My Problems with the Con's Argument II:I have already refuted the Con's Arguments that a fetus is a living human. However, I completely agree with his arugment:"The Supreme Court has, time and time again, reaffirmed the principle of how to handle conflicting rights. When two rights conflict, the right that is superior exceeds the inferior right."I have argued in Round 2 why the rights of women to choose and to have privacy are the superior right. My Problems with the Con’s Argument III:The Con gives two different statistics on the details of abortion. one is from the UK while the other one is from the United States, and without further resources it has to be assumed that they have nothing to do with one another. Let's say that the Con's resources and statements he says are true, even so, the rest of his argument remains false. The Con says that:"Many question if rape and incest are even viable reasons for abortion."Not only is that statement inaccurate, it is also a flat out assumption backed by no reliable resources. Out of all the reasons for pro-choice, this argument remains the strongest: a woman should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy she had no part in starting. That is her right, as a born human, born citizen of the United States, and as an empowered woman.[1] http://www1.umn.edu...[2] http://meteor.aihw.gov.au...[3] http://www.independent.ie...[4] http://www.history.com...