Woman's Choice to "House" her Unborn.

I can't help but wonder if she could put her hands to better use than covering her eyes and ignoring the SPECIFIC points I have raised against every contention. Say, finding citations to support her unfounded claims, perhaps? My opponent claims that I have not answered three arguments: right to bodily autonomy, necessity for abortions, and the different value placed on life. I want to first point out that nowhere in her first round were these three points made clear. As such, her case is clearly not prima facie and she should lose by default. [1] Second, I have indeed answered all three, and not only these but several others, which I won't take the time to list as my opponent has apparently dropped them in her rebuttal. ===> AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS <=== ----> Different Value Placed on Life PRO claims I did not answer this, leading me to question whether or not she actually read my argument in its entirety. I will reiterate: "the worth of a human being is NOT dependent on whether or not others think his life is valuable. Blacks, Indians, Jews, and women have all in the past had their lives declared unmeaningful. Those in power have decided that their own economic, political, or personal goals are more important than the lives of others. Randy Alcorn writes: ‘Personhood is not something to be bestowed on living human beings, large or small, by an intellectual elite with vested interests in ridding society of undesirables. Personhood has an inherent value--a value that comes from being a member of the human race'" Ironically, PRO's conception of positive (rather than negative) rights eliminates altogether the notion of intrinsic values, thus negating both the "right to privacy" and the "right to choose! " PRO claims that rights are derived from "personhood," without giving even giving a definition or explanation. Personhood: (n. ) The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality. [2] Person: (n. law) a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity (artificial person or juristic person) recognized by law as having rights and duties. [3] An unborn child easily meets these criteria. The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a boy or a girl. It is not just a "mass of cells;" embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing resembling this under any circumstances. [4] Obviously, we are discussing the rights of the HUMAN fetus. This topic does not address the rights belonging to a rat fetus or a donkey fetus. Thus, PRO is guilty with her zoological analogy of equivocation. [5] She claims that "personhood" cannot be determined by either side. She has committed here two fallacies: the argument from ignorance and the false continuum. [6] I have given excellent evidence supporting my contention that life and personhood begin at conception, however, If PRO is willing to concede to uncertainty, the best course of action obviously is to err on the side of caution, since we may well be killing a human entity with the full right to life. [7] ----> Necessity for Abortions Allowing for exceptions to abortion law is not, as my opponent claims, incompatible with a pro-life position. In the instance of rape, the child is an unwanted trespasser on the property of the mother. This is consistent with the view that a property owner has a right to remove (or even to shoot) a trespasser. Although I think the lives of both the child and the trespasser have value, and this is not necessarily ethical, I DO recognize that it ought to be legal. I agree that the state cannot (ethically) force the mother to carry such a child to term, though clearly adoption is a better solution and this can hardly be said to make abortion "necessary. " PRO claims that I did not address self-induced abortions. I can only conclude that she misread my statement. I explicitly said: "90 percent of ILLEGAL abortions" were performed by physicians, with the remainder done by nurses or midwives. Since ALL abortion was illegal in the pre-Roe era, this necessarily includes ALL the abortions that took place, including the self-induced ones. I stated specifically that an average of only 32 abortion related deaths occurred on average pre-Roe, which again includes self-induced abortion. PRO has not addressed my (fully sourced) claim that several times this number now occur, other than to object that I have not given a specific number. Since this has been her only objection, the argument clearly belongs to CON. In any case, I don't think any of this relevant. What PRO's argument basically amounts to is this: some people are going to murder other people anyway, so we might as well make it safe and legal for them to do so. [8] ----> Woman's Right to Choose In an attempt to defend the Roe ruling, she begs the question by citing Justice Blackman's application of the "right to privacy" without addressing my criticism of how this "right" came into existence. I caution my opponent that if she continues to argue around in circles, she is apt to grow dizzy. Later in her argument, PRO claims that the debate is not centered on late term abortion. First, this is yet another example of her failure to present a prima facie case; nowhere in the first round did she state this. Second, it is CRUCIAL to point out the rationale of the Roe decision makes NO distinction between the two cases. If she concedes that a third trimester baby has rights, her arguments regarding "choice," "reproductive freedom," and "right to privacy" are effectively negated. ----> Conclusion PRO lacks an objective case for the existence of rights. I have provided one on the basis of the axioms of personal ownership non-aggression. I have also given clear arguments for their consistent application to the unborn. Her failure to provide such a universal framework for her own ethical standard undermines her ability to effectively argue for the women's rights that her case relies on. What reason can we possibly we left with for allowing abortion? I have easily negated all the utilitarian arguments my opponent has put forward, and given my own explanation as to why abortion invariably does more harm than good, which PRO has conveniently declined to answer. By her own admission, all three of PRO's arguments hinge on the notion that abortion is not the violent crime that I have shown it to be. I have effectively proven that an unborn child is a human person. In light of this, her entire argument crumbles. BIBLIOGRAPHY (For rounds 1, 2, & 3) . http://www.debate.org...