Resolved: The United States Federal Government should pass the Life at Conception Act.

Sorry if this round is shorter than my others, I have to start getting ready to go out of town for a few days. I will be taking this round to defend my case from refutations that my opponent has made so far. Contention 1. Lannan has tried to convince us that having a miscarriage will not be federal manslaughter under the passage of this bill, however this is not true. I will accept the criteria that he has proposed for involuntary manslaughter, and prove that each one of these criteria are met. Someone was killed as a result of act by the defendant. This criterion has been met, because the expulsion of a fetus from a uterus results in the death of the child, and because the Mother has committed the expulsion of the fetus. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life. Having PIV (penis-in-vagina) sex is a disregard to the possibility of life to the fetus, because there is a very high probability that the fetus will be expelled from the uterus, and thus dying. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others. This criterion has been completely met. There have been studies done (. http://www.ucsfhealth.org...) that have shown that over 50% of all of fertilized eggs fail to implant into the utuerine wall. If the mother had read up on these studies, then she should have known that there is a high probability that the fetus would die as a direct result of her giving it life. Lannan has also said that "[p]oint two can also be disproven by us just simply looking at the fact that a miscarriage can simply be an accident and is not the fault of the mother", and that is false, because this is what involuntary manslaughter is -- involuntary to the conciousness of the mother; as well as meeting the above criteria, which I have proved that it does. With this defense of my opponent's point, I have won this contention. Contention 2. A fetus is not alive because it fails to meet most of the criteria which I have listed in my second contention, which my opponent fails to actually refute. I listed 7 criteria, which a ZYGOTE (remember, not only a fetus) fails to meet 5 of them, thus not being alive. My opponent has said how a zygote can have respiration because of the umbilical cord that is connected to the mother, but this is really not true. At the moment of fertilization, there is no umbilical cord in place from a singular cell to the uterine wall, so my opponent is completely misinformed about how conception works, and he is completely misinformed about the forming of life. My opponent tried to prove that a zygote has metabolism, but this is not true. This may be true in the case of a fetus that is in the third trimester, but not so much when it is just one cell, which this bill umbrella-ly applies to (new word). The mother's body is not aware that there is a zygote in the uterus, so it does not produce the hormones that are required for metabolism of the zygote. Furthermore, my opponent tries to say that a fetus replies to external stimuli, and I am not refuting that claim at all. I know that a fetus can listen to music, respond to light, etc. However, a zygote fails to do any of these kind of things. Can a zygote hear the music around it? Can a singular cell zygote that was just fertilized respond to the light around it? The answer to both of these questions is no, so this criteria is not met. I drop my reproduction criterion not being met, I was misinformed about that. With that said, my entire point still stands because a ZYGOTE, which this bill applies to, is not alive. I am not saying that a fetus in the third trimester is not alive, heavens no, but a zygote is not. In conclusion, I am winning this debate for the following reasons: successfully defended my case from my opponent, I have attacked my opponent's case successfully, my opponent has not met his BoP concerning zygotes, instead only meeting his BoP when talking about fetuses, I have used reliable sources, I have had excellent spelling and grammar. Remember, voters, that this is not a debate that solely applies to fetuses. My opponent's points have been refuted because he fails to notice that this bill also applies to zygotes, which he did not even mention.