Abortion Is Good For Society

Well, I guess the whole respectful conversation thing is out the window. Pro commits ad hominem multiple times in their argument. As such, I ask they be penalized for conduct. I will address my opponent's protests in order. I did not state that life is anything that can grow or change - the dictionary did. Rocks do change, but they do not "grow." They change because of erosion - either wearing them down or piling more sediment on top of them. Same with stars - they do "grow," but it's different - stars are not made of living organic cells. In any case, I included all those definitions to refute Pro's claim regarding fetuses in Round 1 that "they aren't even alive." If my opponent is willing to admit that rocks, stars, and plants are alive, then certainly a fetus is also alive. Life prior to week 4 - In the vast majority of cases, a woman cannot detect pregnancy until 4 weeks after conception. In order to intentionally terminate a pregnancy (abort), you must know you're pregnant. So if we're debating abortion, then we are mostly discussing this period after 4 weeks. The organism is not an "egg" prior to week 4, so I'm not sure what my opponent is talking about. I agree that an egg is not human life, but we are not discussing eggs here. The second an egg is fertilized, it becomes a zygote complete with 46 human chromosomes and DNA unique to the homo sapien species. Pro keeps saying that "not yet born" is the same as "not yet alive." Since Pro has burden of proof, I ask them again to prove this claim. What specific event or quality makes a baby non-living 30 seconds before birth, and living 30 seconds after? If a fetus is not alive inside the womb, then how can it hear voices, recognize light and touch stimuli, and have a beating heart? How can a non-living organism do all these things? Reproduction: Pro continues to say a living human must be able to reproduce. I admit a fetus cannot reproduce. But once again, I ask my opponent - what about someone who is born sterile - are they not human? Pro's answer in the last round was that a 3 year old is already born, so it's alive. But that returns us to the previous paragraph's question. This is circular reasoning, not an actual answer to the question, Pro says a paralyzed person is still alive because they can move some body parts and their internal organs. A fetus can as well. A fetus can move its arms and legs inside the womb, and its internal organs begin moving and working very early in pregnancy. Communication - I am not saying plants aren't life because they don't communicate, I'm refuting the claim that a fetus is somehow sub-human because it cannot yet communicate. There are times when full grown people cannot communicate, yet they are still human. Here's another argument to demonstrate that, even legally, the unborn are regarded as living members of the human species - American law recognizes an unborn fetus as an individual with individual rights at every point in pregnancy. In 2004, the federal government passed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it illegal to harm (either intentionally or unintentionally) an unborn child. The law defines "unborn child" as follows: "the term 'unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term 'child in utero' or 'child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." This means that if drunk driver hits a pregnant woman who, as a result, loses her baby, he can be charged with homicide even if the mother survives. This remains true whether the mother is 4 or 40 weeks pregnant. The fetus has individual rights protected by law as a member of the Homo sapiens species at every stage of development. [1] Pro has burden of proof, but so far has failed to prove any of their claims whatsoever. To clarify for the final round, I will list out my opponent's claims that still require proof: 1. A fetus is not a living thing 2. A fetus is not human 3. A baby is not alive or human until birth 4. A fetus cannot feel anything 5. The definition of human life is something that can move, think, reproduce, have emotions, and communicate. I believe the first two claims have been sufficiently refuted. I would still like to hear my opponent logically and scientifically explain the third claim (why is a baby not alive 30 seconds before birth?). Claim 4 has also been refuted. Finally, I believe I have shown that Pro's definition in claim 5 does not accurately describe human life, because living people can lack each of those attributes as well. Looking forward to my opponent's response. [1] http://www.gpo.gov...