Abortion is Wrong

Many thanks to rugbypro5 for his opening arguments.Burden of Proof-Who has the burden of proof in this debate? Well, it's fairly simple, my opponent does, unless he specified otherwisein round one. Which he didn't. My opponent could have given me the BOP or claimed that it is shared. But, by refraining from doing either, he gives himself the BOP because he is trying to affirm the resolution, not deny it or doubt it. I will show this contention's relevance later. Non-humanity speal-To open, my opponent goes into a speal and says, "Abortions should be allowed in all 50 states, at whatever trimester the mother decides, and that the mother has every right to do what she wants with the fetus. I have no solid argument, and I will be the first to crossover from being "pro-life" to "pro-choice". That is, if the unborn isn't human. If the unborn isn't human, we have no right to tell the mother what she can and can't do with it." Now, all I have to do is refute my opponent's claim that fetuses, in general, are human, in order to make him concede. Because, even he admits that, "If the unborn isn't human, we have no right to tell the mother what she can and can't do with it." I completely agree that the unborn are humans, but yet there's something missing. Take this syllogism of Pro's entire argument condensed down in two premises and a conclusion.Pro's Syllogism-P1. It is wrong to kill a human being My opponent establishes no real ground to prove this claim. He simply argues how the unborn are humans and concludes his argument. Which isn't sufficient enough to establish his case to prove abortion to be morally wrong. Until he does so we have no reason to accept his conclusion. P2. A human fetus is a human being.I admittingly agree with this premise, for my opponent argues it well. But, both premises must be sound in order for the conclusion to be sound. So, my opponent must argue why it is wrong to kill a human being. C. Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human fetus.My opponent argues the second premise quite well, but never establishes grounds for accepting the first premise's truth. Thus, we have no reason to accept his conclusion.Burden Shifting & Possible Pro-Choice Arguments- After my opponent made his argument in his opening round he moves over to give a conclusion of some sorts. He states, "Now I am taking a very radical position, but I believe it to be the right one. I believe that 1) Life begins at conception 2) There is no good reason to end that life at anytime, except when the mother's life is in danger. And obviously, there is disagreement here. What I'm about to propose are some of the most common arguments." He had hinted towards wanting to establish how abortion is wrong with the exception of one case, in his opening round. He said, "I am taking the stance that abortion is wrong in every case except when the mother's life is in danger." Now, this confuses me. Is my opponent arguing that abortion is wrong in every case except when the mother's life is in danger or is he arguing the blanket statement that, "abortion is wrong." If he is arguing the former, then he would have to list and refute every single reason on could get an abortion other than if the woman's life is in danger. i.e, rape, incest, pre-20 weeks, pre-viability, financial reasons, too young of age, etc. If he is arguing the latter, then he would have to argue how, on balance, abortion is wrong. He has done neither. He must do so in order to uphold his BOP.Towards the end of his round, my opponent lists common pro-choice arguments and then states, "I don't want to take the time to rebut all of these arguments though I am well equipped to do so. I'd like con to present his arguments, whether the ones stated above, or another different one. He then can bolster his argument and give his support for it, and I'll refute it in the last round." This is a classic example of burden shifting, a major error on my opponent's part. He argues that I must provide arguments in support of abortion, but such a claim is a myth and a catastrophic attempt to shift the burden of proof.Conclusion-My opponent opens by admitting that, "If the unborn isn't human, we have no right to tell the mother what she can and can't do with it." He then proceeds to argue for why fetuses are human, I completely agree with this. But, my opponent leaves out the justification for his first premise and thus, his conclusion fails. I explained earlier why my opponent must draw a distinction is what he's trying to prove. Namely, he needs to make it clear whether or not he is arguing that abortion is wrong in every case except when the mother's life is in danger or is he arguing the blanket statement that, "abortion is wrong." Meaning, he is arguing why, in general, abortion is wrong. His opening argument fails to establish either of these, unfortunately. Lastly, my opponent lists common pro-choice arguments and follows up by saying, "I don't want to take the time to rebut all of these arguments though I am well equipped to do so. I'd like con to present his arguments, whether the ones stated above, or another different one. He then can bolster his argument and give his support for it, and I'll refute it in the last round." From this we can take that my opponent is attempting to shift the burden of proof. Doing so is useless because the burden of proof is always on him until he can fulfill it or he withdrawals his position. He has done neither. Therefore, his attempt to burden shift is useless.Back over to you, Pro. :)