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

Thanks to DK and Subutai! This has truly been an exemplar of the sort of high-quality discourse this tournament was designed to elicit. I will review all the main arguments in this debate and then I shall concluded with some reasons to cast a Con ballot today. REBUTTALRules: Pro asserts that he can rebut dropped arguments. However, that is a violation of the rules, which state that no new arguments or responses are permitted at this stage. To present a wholly new rebuttal is to make a rebuttal with new points--there is no valid distinction between them. Insofar as something is new, it is prohibited. Therefore, any such new points must be disregarded. Definitions: Again, the only definition in dispute is that of personhood. Pro accuses me of "rudely disregarding" his points. Merely, I pointed out that the fact that he used two definitions was confusing. How should we evaluate personhood under his argument--using the general or the legal definition? Pro never says. I also pointed out that Pro never contested the logic of my syllogism. For those two reasons, please prefer my single definition of personhood. C1: The Rape ExceptionPro basically concedes that the UDHR has no legal force. Pro then argues that "to ignore [the UDHR] is. .. a rights violation. " Yet, if the document is not legally binding, why is Pro's assertion true? The UDHR does not construct any legally enforceable rights, and so no rights are actually violated by ignoring it. Since much of Pro's arguments are predicated on the fact that the UDHR gives the fetus rights, when in fact the UDHR does not, Pro's argument has been very much weakened. Pro then makes the wild claim that rape makes no difference; yet, not once in this debate has he contested the violinist example except for his illicitnew point in R4. He claims that the violinist is not the baby, the rapist is. But, that is not what the example says. The rapist is the group of music lovers who hooked you up to the violinist (the baby). The example doesn't blame the violinist, but it does assert that because you were taken advantage of and violated against your will, you do have a right to disconnect. Pro's new points completely misconstrue the example. Sub-point A: Firslty, Pro states "forcing someone to save a life is wrong. " Next, as I noted in my last speech, "since the mother is the sole source of the fetus's nutrients, by denying the fetus those things, she permits it to die. This is 'not saving' insofar as it is someone not doing something that would keep someone else alive. " It is just like the potential organ donor refusing to donate organs. He is refusing to save someone. Therefore, using Pro's own words, we can negate the resolution here and now. Sub-point B: Pro argued earlier that the reason the person could not disconnect from the violinist was that the harm to the violinist would be greater. I pointed out that, using Pro's rationale, society could forcibly extract someone's organs in order to save a dialysis patient's life. Pro has DROPPED this point--he has failed to respond to this concern. Therefore, since that kind of "Brave New World" state is clearly undesirable, the person can disconnect from the violinist. This is sufficient to negate the resolution. Pro's only claims here revolve around bodily integrity, but as I just showed, in situation where the bodily integrity conflicts (mother vs. fetus), the mother should have priority because of the dangerous precedent the reverse could set. Therefore, Pro's point is a non-argument. Additionally, Pro has to prove personhood before he can extend integrity rights to the fetus. C2: The Mother's LifeLet me point out that Pro's source says abortion would be "unlikely to prolong" the life of a mother in danger of death from pregnancy. Yet, the source does not say "impossible. " Pro also says self-defense must be a "last-resort" and in the case of an ectopic pregnancy discovered late, it may well be the last recourse. There are cases, such as heart conditions and ectopic pregnancies (which I mentioned earlier and which were DROPPED by Pro), where the mother's life is in danger, but not the fetus's. Even if these cases are unlikely, they do occur. Therefore, there should be a self-defense exception for mothers in those situations. I pointed out that Pro never attacked the validity of the self-defense rationale, merely, he asserted that it would never be needed in abortions. Insofar as I have shown that self-defense is needed, and that it is a valid legal and moral reason to take action, I have negated the resolution. Pro then makes a totally new and illicit argument about how self-defense would lead to a slippery slope. This argument should be disregarded on face as a breach of the rules. It can also be rejected because Pro contradicts himself. He state in R3 that "The fetus has all human rights, and may only be legally killed in self defense. " Now he is saying that self-defense is an insufficient reason. There is a clear contradiction here. Moreover, I have, throughout this debate, maintained self-defense to be a right. Yet Pro is making utilitarian arguments, not right-based arguments, against it. Unfortunately, the issue is not one of utility (rights are not a numbers game). C3: Abortion in GeneralSub-point A: Pro is misconstruing my argument. I said that a fingernail was human, not a human. For example, I can say "that fingernail is human," but it would not make sense to say, "that fingernail is a human. " It's the adjective vs. noun difference. Therefore, my point was that a fingernail could not be given rights simply because it was human. It has to be a human before it can be given rights. I am glad that Pro agrees that a fingernail should not have rights. Extrapolating from this, I asserted that a fetus was human, but not a human. Because it was not a human, it--like the fingernail--could not have rights.1. Pro makes a new, and hence an illicit, argument in response to my mitochondria example. But, even if you accept his impermissible argument, it's still incorrect. He describes the mitochondria as simply an "add on. " Is not a fetus that same thing? A mitochondria has separate and unique genetic material, it even has its own membrane like an individual cell. Yet, it is still not a fully-fledged cell; it is an "add on. " Why do we consider it an add on? Because it is totally reliant on the mother cell and has never existed outside of it. Now, let's look at the fetus. It has its own genetic material, and its own unique outer layer. Why should we consider it an add on? Because it is totally reliant on the mother and has never existed outside of her. Insofar as these examples parallel each other, my argument still stands. To use Pro's own words, the mitochondria (like the fetus) is merely an "add on" not a fully fledged-cell. Therefore, a fetus is not a fully-fledged person. My example, as I have always presented it, clearly destroys the idea that a fetus is a person.2. I think this point as become rather convoluted. I will try to bring some clarity to it. I claimed that a corpse was a human, but it is no longer a human. Pro then stated, "even a corpse is human. " I was using "human" as a noun, and Pro was employing it in adjectival form. Yes, a corpse is human, but it is not a human; it was a human. Pro also stated, society "cannot use your body parts without your permission after you die" I responded by positing, "if you concede that we cannot use a corpse's body parts then your argument about the right to life seems hollow. " My point was that if Pro says we should be minimizing harms when rights conflict (e. g. "the fetus loses out most if ignored"), then we should be able to harvest a dead person's organs to save a living person. Yet, Pro's own remarks contradict his claim to want to minimize harms because he would grant the corpse sovereignty over its organs. In the corpse scenario, Pro would have us NOT minimize harms, unlike in the abortion example. Yet, he provides no reason why these case should be treated differently. My extrapolation is that Pro is making conflicting deontological and utilitarian arguments throughout his case that contradict one another. This is a reason to prefer Con in this debate. If you buy either of these points, you must also accept, going off of my R2 analysis, that a fetus is NOT a person. This utterly destroys Pro's case because it rests on the personhood rationale. Sub-point B: Pro misses the point. If abortion is illegal, there won't be safe facilities to abort even in the U. S. Cross-Application: I already have addressed the UDHR points. Pro then says the following:1. The fetus has unique human DNA2. The fetus is human3. The fetus is a personYou could use the same syllogism in this way:1. The fingernail has unique human DNA2. The fingernail is human3. The fingernail is a personThis should illustrate the ridiculousness of Pro's claim. It is not merely enough to show that a fetus is human (adjective), it must be shown to be a human (noun). Pro has failed to do that, as I argued in C3, SA, points 1 and 2. VOTING ISSUESThe BOP for this round is this: "Pro must show abortion to be wrong in ALL CASES except when both the mother's and fetus's lives are imperiled. If Pro cannot do that, or if I can show additional exceptions, then a Con vote is in order. " Pro never contested this analysis. Therefore, if I win even ONE argument listed blow (or made elswhere in the round), I have won the debate. 1. No Compulsion to Save2. Self-Defense3. Pro makes contradictory Utilitarian and Deontological claims4. A fetus is not a "fully-fledged" person Thank You!