Abortion should be illegal ( Tournament )

...he is not human but he is a person. A person is what is important: We cannot eat Spock, or attack him on whim, or grant him less liberties , neither can we do so to any other intelligent life...a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.2.a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.3.Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.4.Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being.5.the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.http://dictionary.reference.com... Because this isn't a debate related to philosophy we can't use such arguements. Only medical proof must used.My arguementP1 A fetus is a human.P2 By defintion, a human is also a person.P3 But this doesnt matter.C1 Abortion is murder.Lets go back to the definetion of murder.Murder- The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.Because common sense tells us "like makes like" it would be wrong to assume that a fetus isn't human. Con never touched this.The whole arguement on 'personhood' is a red herring. It is a human or not. This was not a philsospical debate. This is medical. It should not matter if a fetus isn't a human.. Is a fetus a human? Yes or no? if yes, then abortion is murder. If not, why not? You have not showen this clearly.Point 2 - This continues from my original point: when we say something is ahuman, we refer to it as aperson. The dead, bacteria, bla bla bla can all have the characteristic of humanhood, but personhood is what is important.Such as? 'Humanhood' is what is really important in this debate. All life has 5 traits in common. Maybe you got those confused?Point 3 - Great argument.That point was biologically false.Point 4 - Yes, but it is irrelevant. That makes it speciesist. In fact, asking "is it a human" is just a way of avoiding addressing whether speciesism is favourable - something I would like to be seen defended.'Speciesist'? We're only talking about humans. I said " Is it human?" to address the fact that it is human. Red herring.Point 5 - I am tempted just to say "I disagree", but that would be a lack of an argument: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.[video1] I want to make it clear here, again, of a simple statement:A person is not necessarily a human, and a human is not necessarily a person.They usually overlap, but my opponent is thinking that the correlation is because of causation.A human is a person. Always. Read the definetion. Again this is irrealvant of the debate that was on hand.Point 6 -HUMANHOODis not as important asPERSONHOOD.Captain Spock is better in my eyes than Fidel Castro or Hitler. Spock may not be human - or real - but he is apersonin the sense that he has all necessary characteristics. Again, if aliens came to this earth, we'd class them as humans, and grant them civil liberties. We do not give the same to humans who aren't "persons".This again. Proof this. What do you mean 'Personhood' is better then 'Humanhood'? Prove this.Point 8 - "I don't have time to give examples." Alright. I shall consider this dropped until you pick it up. I am also extending the possible examples to speaking of urdu, smoke signals or morse code on the womb.A human doesn't have to show commuication. A human is always a human.Point 9 - "It clears waste"No it doesn't : It produces Meconium, which is released after birth, when it gains the ability to do so. However, this is unerlated to self-concept, or a sense of self. Itrefers to an individual's perception of "self" in relation to any number of characteristics, such as academics (and nonacademics),gender roles and sexuality,racial identity,and many others.Where do you think it all comes from? Is it logical that babies poop all that feces at birth?Point 10 missed my point. Im saying that sense a person cant feel pain should they be people?Point 11 - any reading of context can be intelligibly recognised here: abortion is murder is aheading, aclash point. This is simply taking me out of context to make it seem as if I have conceded a point, and is obvious.Sorry for the misunderstanding.Point 12 - He has failed to address this point. Saying abortion is murder means that itcurrently is murder.Meaning it currently is illegal. On the other hand, saying it "should be illegal", and not "should be made illegal" or "should become illegal" implies that it isnotillegal. So he is saying that it is currently legal. Meaning that he is saying a currently illegal action is currently illegal. Which still makes no sense.This is not on topic.