Resolved: Abortion ought to be legal.

First off, I haven't "structured the debate in my favor." If you look at the other debates on this site, Pro goes first, con speaks last, and both get the same amount of rounds. I get three, you get three. I'd ask the voters to dismiss this comment.Also, Pro attempts to redifine the term by stating that it is a "termination of a human pregnancy." Pro, how is a human pregnancy terminated? Do we wave a magic wand and the fetus disapears? No. The actual way an abortion takes place is described here, and note that this is from a doctor who has performed many abortions in the past.NOTE: The following paragraph really is quite graphic, but this is the procedure as described by the doctor who performed it. "After the amniotic fluid is removed, the abortionist uses a sopher clamp — a grasping instrument with rows of sharp “teeth” — to grasp and pull the fetus's arms and legs, tearing the limbs from the fetus's body. The abortionist continues to grasp intestines, spine, heart, lungs, and any other limbs or body parts. The most difficult part of the procedure is usually finding, grasping and crushing the fetus’s head. After removing pieces of the fetus’s skull, the abortionist uses a curette to scrape the uterus and remove the placenta and any remaining parts of the fetus.The abortionist then collects all of the baby's parts and reassembles them to make sure there are two arms, two legs, and that all of the pieces have been removed." (1)So, I ask you Pro, what is wrong with my definition: the killing of a human fetus? This debate comes down to answering one question. Although some may attempt to overcomplicate it, but it comes down to a simple, albeit hard to answer question.Is the fetus a human?If it is, human rights apply, and killing it is homicide. Doing so intentionally would mean murder, in every sense of the word.If it isn't, then the fetus can't be given human rights.Pro has attempted to show that the fetus is not a human, but his interpretation of humanity is inacurate. The fact that I am a human does not change. If someone thinks I'm a dog, I am still not a dog. Even if my mom thinks I'm a dog, this does not make me a dog. However, by Pro's definition, humaninty depends on other's opinion. If someone seperate from you detirmines you are not a human, then you are non-human. But if they decide that today you are human, then human you are.Pro's definition is absurd. It depends on the same argument in favor of slavery. "If you're on my land, I get to decide if you are human or not." In the same way, Pro uses the same rhetoric, "the right to not have somebody else's will imposed onto your own body without consent." Pro cites Roe v. Wade to support his argument. The exact quote here is "the word "person," as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn."This is a terrible source, Pro. I can offer multiple court desisions that have discriminated against specific groups in the same way. "In the eyes of the law…the slave is not a person.” – Virginia Supreme Court, Bailey v. Poindexter’s Executor (1858)"An Indian is not a person within the meaning of the Constitution." - George Canfield,American Law Review (1881) “A fetus is a damn parasite and it invades the mother’s body like one too.” – DailyKos author, 2012 (2)Pro's argument is inhumane. That fetus will become a human, and that is undisputed. The fetus has human DNA from the moment of conception, and that is undisputed. (3)In all sense of the word, that fetus is human.Unborn life is still life. And that is a human child, not a dog, not a cat, not a pidgeon. For that reason, I ask you to apply human rights to unborn human life.Sources:(1) http://www.abortionprocedures.com...(2) http://www.personhood.com...(3) http://liveactionnews.org...