Resolved: Abortion should be banned

I hope the reader has learned something from it, or, at the very least, got some enjoyment out of it. Pro is a great debater; however, his arguments are fallacious. As I have limited characters, I will be consolidating the 19 points into overarching categories with each point being a subheading. 1. A Fetus is Human a. "it already has these characteristics" My opponent claims that he has already proven that fetuses have the characteristics I listed. This is false. Pro has not even named he characteristics I listed, let alone proven that fetuses have them. b. "At week 5 the spinal, and brain develop. It also is creating the digestion system" Once again, this is not an argument for personhood. Most mammals have a nervous system, brain, and digestive system. That does not make them humans. Pro did not refute this. EXTEND ARGUMENT. c. "Already day 22 the baby has its own blood" See above. EXTEND ARGUMENT. d. "Even at 40 days people record brain waves. " See above. EXTEND ARGUMENT. e. "By 8 weeks EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM IS PRESENT. " I would question the veracity of this claim, but there is no need to. See above. EXTEND ARGUMENT. f. Homo sapien DNA=human Pro has not refuted my arguments, nor even mentioned them. He simply restated his own. Dead skin cells have homo sapien DNA, yet they are not humans. EXTEND ARGUMENT. g. PRO'S MOST COHESIVE ARGUMENT "DNA (homo sapien) + organs = characteristics of a human. " This is Pro's best argument. Sadly, it is not true. It ignores all of the characteristics I listed (and Pro ignored). Sentience, viability outside the womb, abstract though, communication, independence, self-awareness, capacity to learn, etc. , EXTEND ARGUMENT. h. Straw Man "The fetus cant learn, and it is dependent, therefore its not human. " I listed many other categories, which Pro ignored. EXTEND ARGUMENT. i. Facial Features Chimps, Apes, Orangutans, Gorillas, etc. all have humanoid facial features. They are still not human. Pro ignores my counter argument. EXTEND ARGUMENT. j. Fetuses Having Human Characteristics. This was the title of point 7. Pro's rebuttal proved that fetuses are alive, something I already accepted. He ignored the point. EXTEND ARGUMENT. k. Dependance "I see no reason that just because it is dependent, that it isn't a human. Note in the 7 characteristics needed for life none of them stated dependence as an issue. " Pro completely ignored the actual point. I am not claiming that independence is a criterion for life; I am claiming it is a criterion for personhood. EXTEND ARGUMENTS. l. Infants vs. Humans. Pro does not even acknowledge his egregious error, and once again, he claims that fetuses are humans. This claim is not further substantiated, and, seeing how all other arguments have been refuted, I see no reason to accept this. There are, however, no arguments to extend as this was Pro's error I was pointing out. m. Fetuses Are Slaves Pro is confusing science with societal acceptance and comparing these two incongruous arguments. The fact that slaves were not considered humans has no bearing on whether they were indeed humans. This is argumentum ad populum. EXTEND ARGUMENTS. n. Erroneous Claim "you conceded the DNA point! " I did no such thing. o. Question Begging "It is. "response to its environment". Extend. Also their animals, and they are alive. But they are not humans. Still extend. " I was claiming that the ability to feel pain is not a distinctly human quality. EXTEND ARGUMENT. 2. Fetuses Are Alive As I have stated in previous rounds, I agree. 3. Religion. Religion has no bearing on the laws of a secular government. EXTEND ARGUMENTS. 4. Killing Ought Be Illegal. Another one of Pro's stronger arguments. Pro claims there is no benefit to abortion. I would refute this, stating the many benefits of abortion, but I needn't refute it. Pro has no made a case that there is criminal HARM from abortion. He is pushing for illegalization, thus, as I made clear in the acceptance round, it is he who has the burden of proof. His only arguments for the harm of abortion are not criminal (see arguments of the plethora of other things that have potential health effects). 5. Constitution "As a fetus is a human, bortion violates the 14th amendment. [12] I'll skip the summary. " If by "bortion," Pro means abortion, then no. He has not made a case for the personhood of the 1st trimester fetus. EXTEND ARGUMENT. 6. Health Effects of Abortion. "My opponent sticks with smoking. An abortion no matter what, even if you just do it once, increases the risk. If you smoke in a controllable manner your risk increase is fairly small. You can control the other risk behaviors, but not abortion. " I named things other than smoking, Pro simply ignored them. Regardless, Pro claims that extent is a valid argument. It is not. It is perfectly legal for one to cut off his/her own arm. There is no denying that doing this once has an effect. Pro has ignored my argument that having potential health side effects has no precedence as grounds for criminalization. EXTEND ARGUMENT. Pro's Defenses of Dropped Arguments: 1. It is one aspect, but not the only aspect required. EXTEND 2. see above. EXTEND. 3. Straw Man. I am not claiming it is a quality of life, they are qualities of personhood. EXTEND. 4. A one word response is not a rebuttal. EXTEND. 5. Not an argument. EXTEND. 6. Refuted above. 7. Refuted above. 8. Pro Dropped this Argument. CONCLUSION:Pro failed to defend ANY of his arguments. He dropped several arguements, and his rebuttals were riddled with errors, erroneous claims, and logical fallacies. His arguments to define a fetus as human listed a plethora of characteristics that are common to most mammals. He then ignored the qualities that define humans, yet he claimed to have proven them The reader obviously knows this is false. I urge the reader to vote for the best aurgued side. I have successfuly refuted all of Pro's arguments, conceding only that fetuses are alive. I am confident that the reader will see that my rebuttals refuted ALL of Pro's arguments. I thank you for reading this debate, and I thank Pro for a good debate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SOURCES:Thankfully, there were no new sources needed, as all Pro's arguments had already been refuted. I will extend previous 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