Resolved: Abortion should be banned

My rebuttals: 1. "A Fetus is a human being" A. First, let me summarize Pro's arguments: i. A fetus has "human" DNA. ii. It has some semblance of nervous and circulatory systems B. A fetus has "human" DNA. The first statement is clearly fallacious. There is no such thing scientifically as "human" DNA. There is only homo sapien DNA. Simply because something has homo sapien DNA does not make it "human. " If this were true, my dead skin cells would be humans, making me, under Pro's logic, a mass murderer. This is quite obviously an absurd notion. C. It has some semblance of nervous and circulatory systems His second argument states anything with the semblance of a nervous or circulatory system is a human. This is yet another absurd notion. The majority of all mammalian organisms have these traits, yet we do not condemn, let alone illegalize, such activities as hunting, eating meat, etc. My opponent is mistaken as to what qualities distinguish someone/something as "human. " "We have self-awareness, spiritual curiosity and philosophical musings. We possess the capacity for mathematics, language, invention, mechanical adaptation and music. " [1] None of these are qualities found in 1st Trimester fetuses. "Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it. Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being" [2] Factors like abstract though, communication, independence, self-awareness, capacity to learn, etc. [3] None of these are observed in 1st trimester fetuses. Pro has yet to make a make for a fetus's personhood beyond ridiculous notions of genetic makeup and organ semblance. 2. "It is morally wrong to kill a human" Before I address his actually argument, let me question his introductory statement: "Killing infringes on basic human rights: the right to life. [8] I my opinion this is self explanatory. I will name the moral misshapen in 3 ways: religion, law, the constitution (still law). " First, Pro has not made a case for a fetus's personhood (as detailed above), thus any argument based on human rights is irrelevant. Second, he claims "religion, law, and the constitution" outline morality. This is a debate about legality (federal and state recognition) in a secular government. Thus, his argument bout religion is irrelevant as our (US) laws are not based upon the god-given moral objectivism of other religions. A. Religion Irrelevant. See above. B. Law "Murder in most countries is illegal and is classified as 'illegal homicide. '" This is true. It also contradicts Pro's statement that "abortion is murder. " Murder, legally, is illegal. 1st trimester abortions are legal, and, therefore, not murder. [4] Pro likely meant to say "abortion [should be] murder;" however, seeing how he has not substantiated this, it is no more than an empty emotional plea. "As it is illegal to kill" This is false. Killing is legal in cases of self-defense, the death penalty, war, etc. To say the government punishes all forms of killing is patently false and ignorant. C. Constitution "'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ' Case closed. " Pro claimed to have quoted the constitution, but he is clearly confused as this quote is from the Declaration of Independence. In addition to being incorrect, he then does not explain the quote's significance, thus, I have no argument to rebut. 3. "Abortion is immoral" I fail to see how this point is different from Pro's previous point: "It is morally wrong to kill a human. " A summary of his arguments: a. "It is wrong to kill human beings" This a debate on legality, not perceived morality, and legally, this claim is false. b. "Abortion is an immoral practice, as it is murder, and many like myself find this a fact. " Abortion is not murder, as I have already outlined. And I have no interest in what Pro perceives as fact if it is contradicted by empirical evidence. Pro has yet to make a case for a fetus's personhood and reason for punishment. 4. "Abortion causes increased risk or breast cancer" This point is irrelevant. Pro is claiming that because there are potential health side effects, abortion should be illegalized. This is absurd. Smoking [5], foods with trans fat [6], lack of exercise [7], etc all have proven negative health side effects, yet none are illegal. So until such time that sitting on one's sofa for extended period's of time is illegal, this is not a relevant argument against abortion. 5. "Other side effects of abortion" This is irrelevant for the aforementioned reasons. Conclusion: As is quite apparent by now, Pro has not made ANY arguments against 1st trimester abortions. He failed to show that fetuses were people. He failed to show why abortion should be illegalized. He made irrelevant points about religion and potential health effects. Pro also repeatedly gave false information, claiming lies as truths. Pro failed to correctly cite quotes, out of intent or ignorance. Finally, his arguments were riddled with grammatical and spelling errors. I urge readers to see Pro's argument for what it is: an empty emotional plea. I hope my opponent has valid points on his next argument. --Apollo ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sources: [1] . http://science.howstuffworks.com... [2] . http://www.abortionaccess.info... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://oxforddictionaries.com... [5] . http://www.netdoctor.co.uk... [6] . http://www.medicinalfoodnews.com... [7] . http://health.nytimes.com...'s-effects-on-bones-and-muscles.html