Resolved: Abortion Laws violate Human Rights Law

Before I start my rebuttals I would like to clarify some terms. Universal-adjective of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases. Now to begin, I would like to start off by defending the statement my opponent either misunderstood or is trying to misrepresent in this round. "Human rights were not created by being born. They are created by the collective opinions of individuals at a time granting what they believed was good should be available to all people." This comment was simply clarifying that human rights were CREATED by humans, not that they are only for certain people. My opponent stated "If human rights are not intrinsic, then they are not universal." but this is unfortunately not only incorrect but also contradictory. If human rights were intrinsic (naturally occurring, essential) then it would be pointless to write down and enforce something that should be natural. In other words the Human Rights are the result of man kinds ingenuity and will to create a better world for one another, not nature's will. Now you may ask, well that means that they are not universal then. That also is not true, as if you look at the definition of universal you will see that what makes something universal is not that it is naturally occurring, but rather it effects and is applicable to all human beings. This is similar to sense that murder, though is naturally occurring in many species, is universally known as being wrong. Also to be known is that the Human Rights of 1948 was drafted by representatives of people from many nations. My opponent stated that "If we allow the collective opinions of individuals at a time to determine Human Rights that means that Human Rights themselves are subjective and relative." He has completely ignored the fact that these “individuals” who draft these laws in a voting system of the UN are ones that were elected and represent the COLECTIVE OPPINION of the people they represent. To say that these individuals who make the Human Rights are completely subjective and relative is to say that any modern democratic government does not represent its people at all and that government is simply an organization that controls society at its whims with little or no regard to there fellow humans. Now what I must admit has been a flaw in both my opponent’s and I’s arguments is that they are often situational. It is true that a sperm needs a female egg to become a zygote, but it is also true that a zygote needs to have a womb to become a human. And unlike a zygote, a human that is on life support or who has a handicapped does not rely on any circumstantial evidence that they are human. A zygote is reliant on the fact that it is still in the womb to be classified as a human, but as soon as a miscarriage or any other event happens to end in its death, it is not treated as nor, at a fundamental thought of a human. There is no funeral, no passing of rites, no burial or any sort of way to pay homage to the zygote. The only thing it had is potential to grow into human, something with modern sciences such as cloning is now possible (though maybe unethical) with almost all cells. Also it is possible to mix with human cells with other animal cells, to create a cross species cell, such as the HeLa cells (human) being mixed with a mouse’s cell in 1965. Should these abominations, which contain human DNA be considered HUMAN? Medicine and experimentation has changed the way the world is seen so much, that it is not possible anymore to consider something human because it’s DNA. A clump of cells is not human. A zygote is not human. A functioning individual, with multiple characteristics, including DNA is what a human is. And the belief that a person on life support is not a functioning individual is a complete misrepresentation of what being human is. The person on life support is capable of breathing, digestion, and movement (like the heart) though it may die without support. An embryo and early stage fetuses are not. To clarify what I mean, there is a point in a pregnancy where it becomes illegal to abort a fetus because it is considered living, capable of thought, higher understanding and other such aspects that a regular cell such as muscle cells are not. It is before this point where abortion is ethical, simply because the cells that are killed off are considered the same as skin or muscle cells. In summary, do not be tricked in believing that a clump of cells that can become human is human. Human DNA isn’t the only factor that makes someone human, and may other factors that are not purely fact driven, such as the human reasoning and soul should be considered.