Abortion should be illegal in the United States

First of all, I wish to thank you, Nags, for accepting my first debate on debate.org. Before I actually address my opponents arguments, I would first like to show that a fetus is, from the moment of conception, a human being. I have already defined a person as a human being; a definition which my opponent has accepted. If I can show that a fetus is human, I will also prove that it is a person, and thus entitled to the rights provided and protected in the Bill of Rights. By doing this, I shall null the various arguments presented by my opponent in favor of abortion, and discredit the primary assumption of Roe v. Wade. The first question that must be asked is 'what defines humanity?'. What answer would an abortionist give? He might say that a human is a thinking, breathing, independent Homo sapien. The trouble is, a definition like this leaves out those clearly human. For example, a person in a coma does not think. Could he be legally killed because he is inconvenient or potentially dangerous to another? Independence or biological independence does not work either. Say a boy is horribly mangled in a car accident. He cannot breathe or obtain any nutrients or energy himself, so he has to be wired to a machine to live. He is biologically dependent upon the machine for survival, but he is still a human being. His mother cannot disconnect him from the machine (and thus kill him) before he can recover. No, a human being is formed at the moment of conception, which entitles him/her to the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness which, we, as Americans, believe. How do I know life begins at conception? Aren't the products formed by conception only a potential human, like sperm or egg cells? In short, a fetus is different from sperm or egg cells in the fact that sperm or egg cells only contain half the DNA needed to form a human being. By themselves they will never become a human. They are incomplete. However, when united they become a single, unique human life, separate from the mother by its own DNA and gender, which will define its characteristics for the rest of its life. At no point afterwards does it radically change and become human. It already is. Now that I have clearly shown that a fetus is indeed human (and thus entitled to human rights), I will refute each of my opponent's arguments. Nags said: "Access to abortion has improved the lives of women in the U.S. For one thing, it has lessened the health risks faced by women getting abortions. Before the Roe decision, many women seeking abortions had to visit unregulated and often unprofessional illegal practitioners. 'The most important..." I'm not going to post the rest of the paragraph, because I still have not mastered the cut/paste feature on my computer (yes, I am very new to this form of debate). It seems that my opponent is defending a something by saying that, if it becomes illegal, it may potentially hurt those who choose to break that law. Here is an equivalent example: a burglar breaks into a house and is injured by the homeowners protecting their property. Afterwards, there is a movement to legalize burglary so that, in the future, burglars will not be harmed trying to violate another's rights. The logic behind the movement is absurd; if you act outside the law, then the law cannot protect you from the harm you would bring to yourself. Also, my source does not show that legalization of abortion decreased deaths caused by abortion. Go to: http://www.abortionfacts.com...? Nags said: "Access to abortion also improves women's opportunities. Women who..." That first sentence summarizes the next two paragraphs quite well, so once again I will post only it. The entire argument is irrelevant when it is considered that the fetus is harmed more by the abortion than the woman is benefited by it. If the woman does not want a child she may simply give up for adoption (I know adoption is a long and difficult process. I would like for that to change, but it still does not justify abortion). Also, it is better for a child to be neglected and mistreated than to have no chance at life whatsoever. Nags said: "What happens when a woman is raped? Or a young girl becomes pregnant through incest? What if the fetus is deformed and unlikely to survive anyway? What is the mother's health is at risk? Also, What if the mother's life is at risk? Abortion should be absolutely legal in cases like these." My opponent has given no argument as to why abortion should be legal in these cases (which, by the way, are all rather rare reasons for obtaining an abortion)[1], and seems to leave it up to me to refute them. I completely disagree with my opponents assumption. In the cases of rape and incest, the fetus has committed no fault of its own. For the mother to simply abandon the fetus to its death would be wrong. When the fetus is deformed or not likely to survive, it should not be denied the chance to live. It may not live life to the fullest, but it doesn't deserve to die. If the mother's health or life is at risk, then it is at risk from the birth itself, not the presence of the fetus. The simple answer is to have a Cesarean section. But remember, the life of the mother and the baby are equal; you cannot choose who has more right to live. Abortion is not the answer in any of these examples. Nags said: "In conclusion, women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies." A perfectly true statement. However, my opponent seems to use this statement to apply to the fetus's body as well as the mother's. The fetus is a person by itself, as I have shown, and thus the mother has no right to kill/harm it. Yes, the mother's life and body are significantly affected by the pregnancy, but she still cannot harm another because of it. She is responsible for her child. Nags said: "Fetuses, prior to viability, do not have rights." There is no evidence (at least that I know of) that human life begins at viability. The point of viability is not a certain time. It has changed over the years as medicine has advanced, and is still an open topic for debate. It is merely another stage in human development. Nothing vital in the fetus itself changes, just its relationship to the mother. Its DNA does not alter; It is the same living being. In a previous analogy, I showed that a biologically dependent life form can still be human. Why is viability used to determine humanity if it has nothing to do with humanity? In brief, viability is a standard set by society to justify abortion. It is another qualification of 'personhood' we have created to ease our consciences. Much the same was done 150 years ago, when slavery was legal. Back then, slaves were counted as only 2/3 of a person on the census. Once again, history repeats itself. My opponent's application of the 13th amendment is faulty. To apply it to parenthood would justify parents abandoning their children. If you are old enough to be a mother or father, then you are old enough to handle that which comes with it. If you are not, then you may give your unwanted child to the care of another. You may not leave that child, in the care of no one, to die from neglect. Nags said: "Even if the privacy right cited in Roe v. Wade were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional arguments that imply a woman's right to make decisions about her own reproductive process." The right to privacy comes after the right to life. I would greatly like to see those "numerous other constitutional arguments" supposedly in favor of abortion. I must stop now, as I am out of characters, even though I have much more to say. I Thank you once again, Nags, for accepting my debate. I have found it most enjoyable. I wish you good luck as well. Sources:[1] http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...