Resolved: Legalized Abortion is the Greatest Crime against Humanity in the History of Mankind

Thanks to my opponent (Con) for an interesting Round Three. I think I will address Con's comments and other points of contention in reverse order this time. Con, I didn't acknowledge your earlier claim that "a fetus is part of the mother" partly because it's such an absurd (non factual) claim that I was confident that most of the voters would point it out to you in their RFD's and tell you how wrong you are. A child in the womb is NOT part of his or her mother's body. 1. Check the DNA. 2. Understand that the child's body and system has to release hormones and such to trick the mother's body so that she doesn't reject the child. This is objective proof that they are not part of the same body. QUOTE: "... Proteins released by the blastocyst weaken the woman’s immune system in the uterus, so that the woman’s body will not reject this object, which is made up of foreign material [10]. 3. The mother and child are just as separated by the Placental Barrier as they are connected by it. But the barrier exists for the sole purpose of keeping the two bodies and systems apart from one another. QUOTE: " ...the placental barrier prevents the actual mixing of maternal and foetal blood but allows the passage of nutrition and wastes to and fro [11]." I digress. Pro believes that most readers and voters will know that a prenatal child is a separate living organism and is not a 'part of' their mother's body. In R-3, My opponent said: "... it is wrong of you to say 1.24 BILLION children (have been killed by abortions), a more correct statement would be 1.24 billion CLUMPS OF CELLS THAT ARE PART OF THE MOTHER AND THUS THE MOTHER HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE." Aside from the above being biologically incorrect, for those of us who hold that legalized abortion is a crime against humanity, Con's comment is a perfect example of the '3. Dehumanization' that he himself cited from his source number [7] in round two. Con has a clear objection to children in the womb being referred to as "children." So, I would like to point it out to Con that the U.S. code already defines 'children in the womb' as such [12].Quote: "... 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.[12]" Con somehow extrapolated from my previous remarks that if an abortion is a murder and a crime against humanity, it must be a crime (using Pros logic) for women to menstruate?I have to admit, I was not prepared for such a charge. Con, children who die in miscarriages (unless induced deliberately) have died of natural causes. How Con can equate the natural death of a child of any gestational age with the deliberate killing of a prenatal child by a paid abortionist is beyond Pros ability to comprehend. Does Con not appreciate the fact that we already have laws which make the unjust killing of a child in the womb punishable as a murder [12]? Yet, those laws do not make it a crime for women to menstruate. Do they Con? As far as Con's claims in R-4 that a child in the womb "IS NOT an organism, IS NOT a human being, and IS mere potential?" Con has put himself in the unfortunate place of having to prove a negative. I remind Con of the fact that even Planned Parenthood (no friend to the anti-abortion cause) acknowledges the fact that the unborn are organisms.QUOTE: "A human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stage of development. [13]" ~ Robert P. George is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. He is also a professor of jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.Again, I digress. I asked my opponent whether he would agree that Legalized Abortion is the Greatest Crime against Humanity in the history of Mankind, if it could be established that a human life, personhood and basic human rights begins at conception? Con answered NO. Con answered NO. Because 1. "it would sidetrack this debate (R-3)"and 2. Because he does not "agree with the statement even if human personhood began at conception (R-3)." To Con's credit, Con did answer yes; that he "would consider it to be a crime against humanity."(R-2) to deny the status of personhood to a human being or to a group of human beings" - in his remarks of round two. I ask my opponent to specify what he would consider to be a Greater 'Crime Against Humanity' than the murders of the 1.28 BILLION children killed by legalized abortion since 1980. (again, assuming Con can be convinced of the fact that Pro is... that life, rights and personhood begins at conception.)What could possibly be the greater crime against humanity than that? [1] Crimes Against Humanity - http://en.wikipedia.org......[2] Elective Abortion - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com......[3] Ethnic - http://www.thefreedictionary.com......[4] National - http://www.thefreedictionary.com......[5] Dred Scott - https://supreme.justia.com......[6] Zygote (organism) - http://www.plannedparenthood.org......[7] Embryo (organism) - http://www.plannedparenthood.org......[8] Fetus (organism) - http://www.plannedparenthood.org......[9] Abortion Counter - http://www.numberofabortions.com......[10] Proteins - http://www.longwood.edu...[11] Placental Barrier - http://lifepregnancy.com...[12] U.S. Code - http://www.law.cornell.edu... [13] Human organism - http://www.npr.org...