the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

Rebuttal:"con doesn't finish his analogy about a tree."-I did not provide an analogy. I provided an example that corresponded with Pro's analogy. Pro's analogy was: "If you caused an accident and the victim of the accident is attatched to you, then you should not separate the victim from you." -My example was: "I caused an accident by accidentally knocking a leech off a tree. The leech is a victim. The leech (victim) attatched itself to me, and I was justfied and certainly had the right to detatch it from me."we can assume that like a tree exists, and lives, it doesn't want to die."-A tree can't want anything. The concept of desire does not exist to a tree, neither does any concept for that matter because trees don't have brains and therefore don't think. The same applies to a fetus. It can't want anything."it's implied that living things don't want to die."-No it's not. As stated above, many living things can't want anything. Actually, a more accurate implication would mean that that all living things want to produce offspring, and while many living things have to live and not die to reproduce, that does not apply to the majority of living things, since the majority of living things are cells. Almost all cells reproduce through cytokinesis [1]. Cytokinesis is a process that splits a cell in two, producing two daughter cells and "killing" the original parent cell.-The implication that all living things want to reproduce (and not live) is observable in mulitcellular organisms as well. A male praying mantis for example, wants to die. The dream of every male praying mantis is to get eaten by a female mantis (and die) because that would mean they have reproduced. -Therefore this assertion is negated."con says i dont have to talk about abortion cause we are talking about rights in general. we've been talking about abortion all along, though, and it is what i mentioned in my openiing statement. it's some sort of twisted footwork to say otherwise."-The resolution at hand is about the rights of a fetus and a woman. This is observable in the resolution. If Pro had wished to debate abortion directly, she should have "con says 'all humans have the same rights'. but it's again a play on words, as if we value one person more than the other."-Your "value" of someone does not change their rights. I value my mother more than my friend's mother. But they have the same rights."-I fail to see how that point supports your argument and proves that a fetus would have more rights than a woman."the fetus must be considered a human later in pregnancy"-Very well then. A fetus is considered a human and therefore has the same rights as every human, therefore its rights trump no one's."how is it a human a few seconds out but not a few seconds in?"-You are HIV negative a few seconds before the virus enters your body, but a few seconds when it's in your body, you are HIV positive. Same concept.-A few seconds in, the fetus is attatched to the mother through the placenta. During this time, the fetus can be considered by some as an organ of the mother. However, a few seconds out, and the placenta is cut and it cannot be considered an organ anymore.-Nevertheless, I concede that a fetus "a few seconds in" is a human, and so it has the same rights as everyone and its rights trump no one's.Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...