Abortion Should Remain Legal

For quick clarification:I beleive my opponent missed the point of my argument, or just doesn't understand what the 14th amendment is saying. He ignored the second part of the sentence, where it states "Nor shall and state deprive any person (not citizen, mind you) of life, liberty, or property etc. ". I do not have any quarrel with citizens and their rights, I'm just pointing out that it also gives all people certain rights as well. My opponent seems to think that by not allowing women to kill their unwanted children, we are depriving women of their pursuit of happiness. However, it is the opposite. By allowing abortion, we are denying these children all 3 of their inalienable rights, whether they are citizens yet or not is irrelevant. I believe my argument actually addressed my opponent's rebuttal already. If you would recall, the human zygote is distinct due to its coordinated interactions directed towards a higher level of organization. This makes it very different from a piece of dandruff. A zygote doesn't require cloning, or any external intervention, to become a fully grown being. A piece of dandruff has no such potential. My opponent's argument is clearly flawed, and I would hope his future arguments will not already have been refuted. I do not see how my arguments are weak at all. So far, I have shown that the Constitution applies to all people, I have shown that modern law isn't justification for modern law , and that a human zygote is a human being. There's not much more to prove. With these already established, answering my opponent's next question will be quite simple. Is abortion morally correct? My opponent is using the add passiones fallacy here, despite the fact that in reality (and all things logically considerd) any spectator's emotions shouldn't support his side at all. He claims that we have no right to control a woman's life. I agree. However, we do not claim that making murder illegal is "controlling a person's life". No. The only case where abortion would be the wrongful controlling of another being's life is in the scenario that an unborn child is not a human. This is not the case, as I've shown. In fact, the only side supporting the wrongful control of another being's life is my opponent's. It's the only logical conclusion we can come to. My opponent has failed to show that non-U. S. citizens do not have the right to life, and has failed to show how an unborn child (in any stage) is not a human. Therefore, abortion is the taking of a human being's life. Abortion deprives a human of his right to life. The right to life (of any human) can not be condoned under U. S. law. Therefore, abortion should not remain legal! Can my opponent refute this? I don't believe he can, but I'll be disappointed if he doesn't try. A baby who is the product of an incestual relationship has the right to be born. I don't believe that your status as a human being depends on who your parents are. I will address the "mother whose life is threatened" argument in a minute. However, as for human who is the product of an act of rape. That human is still a life. I stated clearly in round 1 that if the baby did not threaten the life of the mother, the legality should not be questioned. If it won't deprive you of your rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, then you have no right to deprive another living being, do you? My opponent is clearly still using the Ad Passiones falalcy here, and a borderline Ad Hominem attack. My opponent doesn't realize that when he proposed this debate round, he was going to have to remove any emotions he may feel from the playing field. Debate is a battle of reason, not emotion. Is it unfortunate, in any scenario, for a woman to get raped? Agonizingly so. Is it even worse when she is burdened with bearing a child she does not want? Of course. No doubt. But does the inconvenience justify the taking of a human life? No. If a human is tortured, and will be tortured more unless she shoots an innocent man in the head, is the murder of that man justified? Looking at the same problem with a different perspective shows how my opponent's argument was merely built on passion, and not sound logic. My personal feelings are my own, and my opponent's are his. Legality is not about opinion. I am slightly offended that my opponent would assume I lacked sympathy for rape victims, seeing as that is the farthes thing from the truth. However, worse things have been said. I would advise my opponent to keep his arguments strictly logical, however. No one likes to lose a debate due to bad conduct. Finally, I will address the problematic (yet extremely rare) scenario of a woman's life being threatened due to pregnancy, in the case of rape. I believe that we can return to the same analogy of the tortured captive, with a much more sickening twist. Instead of merely recieving more torture, the captive in question will die if she does not shoot said man. However, she did not do anything to be put in this situation. It would be foolish to state that action here is either legally permissable or not. That man she has the choice of shooting is still a person, but she has a right to life as well. I believe, morally, she is obligated not to shoot said person. However, seeing as not all people share the same sense of morality I do, and it was really not the woman's choice to get into this situation, I believe it is debatable whether it would be legal to do so. However, before my opponent twists my words on this (as any clever debater would, to some degree), I want to clarify something. Just because it is debatable whether an innocent woman, whose life is threatened, has the right to end another innocent life to preserve her own, does not mean it is justified to allow all women to destroy all innocent lives. Despite the villainous description my opponent has tried to give me personally, I am merely a man trying to also defend my beliefs. It is clear to me, as I beleive it should be to any logical being, that abortion is murder. I have proved my point so far, my opponent hasn't fulfilled his burden of proof. It's as simple as that. Your move, Pro. I eagerly await your response. Thank you.