Resolved: The United States Federal Government should pass the Life at Conception Act.

Thanks for understanding about Student Congress wording and debate orientation, Lannan.Contention 1. Lannan has tried to do something very admirable here, and that is trying to prove to us that abortion is immoral due to the fact that a fetus is self aware and is alive, and I applaud him for trying to bring this up. However, this is simply not true when you actually look at what self-awareness is, or what life is, as I explained in my R2C2. Self-awareness is defined as, "conscious knowledge of one's own character, feelings, motives, and desires" [1]. Now, this Act is a very large and umbrella-like one, that reaches not only out to the second or third trimesters of pregnancy, but to ALL times of 'life' of a homo-sapien, from fertilization to the deathbed. Because of this basic nature of the Act, we can see that a fetus is not self-aware. A zygote does not have concious knowledge about its surroundings -- it is just one cell. A zygote does not have a character, it does not have feelings, and it does not have desires. If we move beyond the raw semantics of the words "self-awareness", we can see that his point is invalid in another sense. A fetus cannot meet the terms of "self-awareness", because he has not yet met the criteria that is required for self-awareness. In order to be self-aware, you must have met your: physiological needs, security needs, belongingness and love needs, and esteem needs [2]. This is all according to Abraham Maslow [2]. Below is a picture of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, where the bottom is most important and most vital, and top is the least vital and least 'important' [3]. I do not need to refute the idea that a zygote is alive since I have already proved that this is false in R2C2.Contention 2.I would like to give you a quote from Gloria Feldt on the topic of a causal link between breast cancer and abortion [4]. “Another favorite tactic of anti-choice extremists is to scare women away from having abortions by telling them that the procedure causes breast cancer. In other words, when they don’t have law or truth on their side, they just lie. The link between abortion and breast cancer is about as medically sound as the link between root canals and mouth cancer, but the right-wingers have spread this lie far and wide.… The few study cited by proponents of the link between breast cancer and abortion have all been old, small, and flawed… Similarly inaccurate statements were posted on a National Cancer Institute website Factsheet, another source from which citizens have a right to expect straightforward reporting of the facts. “Some studies have reported statistically significant evidence of an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have had abortions, while others have merely suggested an increased risk,” the NCI website stated… The idea that abortion causes breast cancer has zero validity.” What we can interpret from this quote is that there is no real, non-circumstantial evidence to prove that abortion is a direct causation factor in breast cancer. What I always like to tell to people when they bring up these kind of statistics is, "well, did X cause Y, or did X and Y just so happen to happen at the same time?", and most of the time they say that it was the latter. This is a logical fallacy known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc", which is a logical fallacy in which someone says that X caused Y without any real in-depth research [5]. Because I have proved that my opponent has used a logical fallacy when determining whether abortion causes breast cancer, this point of his has successfully been negated.But before I do move on, here are some of my theories as to why there has been a sudden uptick in breast cancer stastics in China. Now I am not an expert in ALL of the causes of breast cancer, and very few are, but these are just my personal theories: poor air quality due to pollution, and chemicals are going into the lungs of women, absorbing into their breasts, and causing cancer with carcinogenic chemicals more screening meaning there is more possibility to tell that someone has breast cancer Hormone Replacement Therapy (which is surprisingly common in China [6]) Contention 3. If I provide just one rhetorical counter example, then I have negated my opponent's entire contention. According to the Telegraph, there are hundreds of women each and every year that are diagnosed with a very aggressive type of cancer, and are also 'diagnosed' (lack of better term) with pregnancy [7]. The current medical opinion is that no mother should be allowed to start on chemotherapy until her fetus is past the first trimester, even if it is at an immediate threat to the mother's life. The cancer often poses the impossible choice for the mother of either (1) saving herself or (2) saving neither the baby nor the mother. In this instance of a first trimester baby and only a few weeks to live if the woman does not start on chemotherapy, I have successfully negated my opponent's contention.[1]: Google definition of self-awareness. [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]: http://figur8.net...[4]: http://clinicquotes.com... (I couldn't find my original source for this so this will have to do. sorry!)[5]: http://en.wikipedia.org...[6]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[7]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...=note= I used the word 'he' as a pronoun for a fetus sometimes in here. It's just a general pronoun don't delve too deeply into that. Wrap-up:I am winning this debate because: my opponent has not met his burden of proof due to the invalidation of all of his contentions none of my opponent's contentions stand uncontested I have successfully negated my opponent's contentions I have used reliable sources I have made good arguments and rebuttals I have been using excellent conduct (so has Lannan, so this isn't a reason why I'm winning, but just throwing that out there) I have used great spelling and grammar (so has Lannan, again) Posted this round with only a few characters left. Good luck and again, thanks for this debate, Lannan