Abortion should be illegal in the United States except when both mother and child might die.

I will use this round to rebut DK's case--I will defend my own case next round. So, without further ado, I will present my refutations. PREMISES Overview: A. The resolution poses a question of what "should" happen--not what can happen. Please keep in mind that, regardless of whether or not you belive in the feasibility of legal abortion, that resolution is not concerning itself with such issues as viability of implementation. Arguably, Pro has yet to assert why it is not desirable to legalize abortion except to rely on the pershood rationale. B. Pro's Premises are design to show that persons have rights. These premises therefore rest on the validity of both of his arguments (insofar has Pro must show a fetus to be "a living human. ) If either one or both of Pro's arguments fall, his premises must also fall because they will lack any foundation on which to rest. 1. Roe v. Wade: Pro asserts that it is the opinion of the Court that if the fetus were to have "personhood" than abortion would be illegal. For the ake of argument, let us assume--momentarily--that the fetus is a person. Why does this mean that an abortion is impermissible? If you swing a machete at me, and I am forced to strike you down in self-defense, I have done nothing wrong. Yes, I have killed a person, but the threat posed to my life was justification enough for me to employ lethal action in response. Even the Supreme Court recgonizes the right of self-defense, including the right to use lethal force in defense of others. Being a person, therefore, does NOT mean that you cannot be justifiably killed . 2. UDHR:It is important to note here and now that the UDHR is NOT legally binding, and so it does not impose any postivie burden upon the U. S. to do anything. [1]A. DK has agreed that a woman has a right to bodily integrity, and if we were to take the UDHR on face, she would have that right regardless of a "disinction of any kind," including, seemingly, pregnacy status. In other words, the fact that the woman has a right to control what occurs within her body, as well her own physical integirty, is not obviated by the fact that she is pregnant. If we grant that the fetus is a person for the time being, we should also grant the a fetus is wholly dependant on the mother for nutrients, etc. However, as per her right to bodily integirty, a woman has the right to control what goes on in her body. Therefore, she should be able to decide whether or not to continue to support the fetus inside her. If she does not want to continue to support the fetus, than she can abort it and deny it a home inside her. She has made a decision about her privacy and physical integrity. B. Just as the victim of a kidnapper can kill his captors to escape, just as a torture victim can kill his interrogators, and just as a homeowner can use lethal force against many intruders to protect their space, so too can the mother abort. There does not need to be any imminent threat to someone's life to exercise deadly force legally--in all of the foregoing examples, it is not clear that there is any imment danger of death, but the deprivation of the individuals' freedoms, physical integirty, and privacy was sufficient justifcation for the deadly actions. C. Finally, Pro discusses security of person and liberty as being rights. If a woman is forcibly impregnated, or is denied the liberty to control the goings-on and processes of her own body, are not those very rights being violated? Pro has not provided an answer for this. Even if we give the fetus those rights as well, why does the fetus's claim to those rights somehow outwiegh the mother's claim to those rights? D. I would also like to point out that the human rights status of abortion is hardly definitive or clear-cut. The Euopean Court on Human Rights, for instance, has established the "right to a private life" which permits women to pursue safe abortion where abortions are legal. [3] The Court has also consistantly failed to assert that abortions violate any entity's rights. ARGUMENTS1. Is the Fetus HumanFirst, I would like to make a brief point about semantics. When "human" is used as an adjective, it refers to things made by, of, or belonging to humans. Clearly, an embryo can be described a human because it is made by and of humans. Yet, "human" when used as a noun has a different denotation: any individual member of the species Homo Sapiens. [2]A. As a fetus is not fully formed, it is not a fully-fledged member of the species anymore than a President-elect is not a fully-fledged President. In both cases, the former is still developing the traits/abilities that will make it the latter, but it is not there yet. A fetus has potenital humanity, at the very most, but that is not the same as actual humanity. B. Consider also the notion of the "individual. " Is a fetus an individual? It is not clear that a fetus is an individual for the simple reason that it cannot survive without the host, and has never existed separate from the host. Just as a mitchondria is not an individual cell, though it has its own genetic material, so too is the fetus not an individual person. Again, it has the potential for individuality, but that is not the same as having individuality in the present. C. Finally, a human implies that someone possess the full-range of capacities that make them alive. A corpse is not a human, it was a human. It lacks the full-range of physical traits that make someone a human. An adult has all of his or her organs presnet, has a skeletal structure and so on, making them a human. A zygote does not; it could be human, but until it develops those components that would allow it to survive outside the womb, it is not, in fact, a human. So, an embryo or zygote could become a human, but niether is a human, and this is an important distinction to make. 2. Is the Fetus AliveA. Many of these characterisitcs--like excretion and respiration--do not fully develop until later in the embryonic, zygotic, or fetal life. This brings up the question of WHEN does the fetus become fully "living. " If it is only alive once all of these traits are realized, then it can, logically, be aborted before then, because it would not be a person. B. Moreover, let's look at the virus example for a moment. It is not considered alive because it fobs off reproductive and other functions onto other living cells--i. e. , it is only capable of carrying out the functions of life vicariously. Because of this, it is not considered to be alive. A fetus is similar in that many of its life functions must be carried out vicariously throught the mother. In the same way that a virus is not alive, a fetus is not alive. I will discuss the question of whether a fetus is alive more in the next round, when I move into the defense of my own case. CONCLUSIONIt is now more in doubt than ever if the fetus is really alive, and whether it truly is a "person. " If it is not a person, the case for abortion stands because Pro's premises rely on this one point. On the other hand, even if a fetus is a person, that does not mean that abortion should be illegal in all the cases that it would be in a Pro world. Therefore, Pro has much ground to traverse in order to effectively win this debate. First, he must demonstrate the personhood of the fetus, and then he must convince you that even in the exceptions I offer, abortion is never allowable. Thank you. I will be defending my case in my next speech, and I look forward to responding to DK's arguments. Thus, I urge you all to VOTE CON! SOURCES 1 - . http://www.humanrights.gov.au...2 - . http://dictionary.reference.com...;3 - . http://www.intlawgrrls.com...