Abortion should be illegal in the United States except when both mother and child might die.

Thanks to DK for his replies. I will defends my own case at this time. DEFINITIONS Extend the DROPPED definitions of should and except. Also, since Pro does not attack the logic of my syllogism, and says that he "often used the definition [Con] gave," you should prefer my single definition of person. Also, having just onedefinition for the term adds clarity to the debate. FRAMEWORK This is all DROPPED. Please extend it. The impact here is this: that Pro must show abortion to be wrong in ALL CASES except when both the mother's and fetus's lives are imperiled. If Pro cannot do that, or if I can show additional exceptions, then a Con vote is in order. CON's CASEContention 1: The Rape ExceptionAgain, the UDHR has no formal legal force. To quote my source directly, "it is not legally binding. " [1] Pro argures that rape is a distinction without differece, but this is clearly a faulty argument for sevral reasons. Let's refer back to Thompson's analogy of the violinist. When one is forcibily violated in such an extrme and traumatizing fashion, one should be able to unplug oneself from the violinst. There is no obligation to spend your life hooked up to someone else. This particular example is DROPPED by Pro and links directly to the rape exception. Pro also asserts that the mother's right to bodily integrity is second to the life of the fetus. But, by this logic, we could force people to be organ donors--we could preform nonconsensual surgeries on them, extract nonvital organs, and use them to save others. Your right to boidly integrity, to be free from that type of invasion, would be less valuable than the right of someone in need of a kdney to live. Clearly, there is something deeply disturbing and wrong about forcing someone to undergo such a procedure, yet it would be justified under the rationale Pro gave. Sub-point A: No compulsion to SavePro appeals to the "inhumanity" of my argument, but if you look at the foregoing example of the forced surgery, you can see that Pro's world could be just as "inhuman. " Pro tries to claim the the fetus does not need saving--however, since the mother is the sole source of the fetus's nutrients, by denying the fetus those things, she permits it to die. This is "not saving" insofar as it is someone not doing something that would keep someone else alive. The DROPPED analogy I provided was if the only way to keep me alive was to have Matt Bomor (or Kim Kardashian) kiss my fevered brow, you still could not go to LA or wherever they live, kidnap them and drag the across the country to kiss my forehead. It would be an unnaceptable violation of their rights, even though it would save my life. They have a right not to be compelled to save me, or, to use my earlier phrasing, they are free to not do something that would keep someone else alive. Since Pro utterly fails to attack the logic in the example, this point should be extended. Sub-point B: Mother's Bodily IntegrityI argued that if you had the right to bodily integrity, by what rationale can we deny that you have the right to disconnect from the violinst? Con's response was that the harm to the violinist was greater. But again, by that rationale we could forcibly extract someone's organs in order to save a patient of dialysis. It would justify huge invasions in privacy akin to a wolrd like that constructed bu Huxley in a Brave New World. At what point do things simply go to far? Contention 2: Saving the Mother's Life Pro DROPS the self-defense arguments I present. His only argument is that if the mother's life is at risk, so too is the child's. Therefore, if I can show cases wherein only the mother's life is at risk, this contention becomes UNREBUTTED OFFENSE for me. I have two examples to cite here. The first one is a personal example. My friend has a heart condition that prevents her from doing a variety of physical activies and so on. Her doctors have told her that she could likely sustain a child up until birth, but that the act of labor would probably kill her. In the cases of people with serious heart conditions, babies pose a serious, imminent, and lethal threat. Therefore, mothers have the right to exercise self-defense and to abort the fetus. The second example I will cite are ectopic pregnancies. While usually fatal, a small portion of them prodcue viable fetuses. [2] If a doctor realizes that a pregnancy is ectopic, he faces this dilemma: the pregnancy will likely kill the mother, but there is a much smaller chance that nothing bad will happen. Clearly, the threat to the mother is imminent, real, and lethal--she should be able to exercise her right of self-defense. Since Pro's only argument here has been shown to be void, you can extend my argument. Contention 3: Abortion in generalPro asserts that I have widened the ground. In fact, I have always asserted that I only need to win ONE of my contentions or sub-points to win this debate, as per the DROPPED framework analysis. Sub-point A: The fetus is no a personThe arguments I provided against Pro in previous speeches, and which I will be summarizing next round, speak to this point more fully. I will make just two quick points now though:A Fetus is not A human. A finger nail can be desribed as human, because it is "of" us. Yet, we would not give it the fully panoply of rights simply because of that. A thing must not merely be human, it must be A human for it to count.1. Pro never addressed my example of the mitochondria. The mitochondria has its own, separate genetic material, but it is not considered its own cell. It requires the host cell to survive, it feeds off of, and gives back, to the host, but it is not an individual per se. Apply this DROPPED point to the fetus. It may have its own genetic info, but that does not make it an individual. It cannot survive separate from the mother. It is not an "individual. "2. Pro makes the argument that a corpse is not a human, but yet, it clearly isn't the same as you or I. It was a human, but it no longer is. And, if you concede that we cannot use a corpse's body parts then your argument about the right to life seems hollow. If your rationale flows through, then society should be able to use the dead's body parts ot help others live good, healthy lives. Pro's point is contradictory. Sub-point B: Public Health RisksPro argues that unsafe abortions are outwieghed by the lives saved by prohibiting abortions. Yet, in countries where there are no safe locations to conduct abortions--primarily developing nations--unsafe abortions account for 55% of all abortions. [3] Women have the right to expect to be able to control their own bodies, and to be able to do so in a way that is safe and controlled. Cross-application: The UDHRPro again hinges all of his points on the UDHR and on the Personhood rationale wit his concluding argument. The UDHR is not legally binding, and--even if fetuses were persons--they would not retain the right to life in all cases. Just as an assailant can be killed in self-defense, even though they are indisputably a person. Therefore, even if you buy Pro's premises, that does not mean he has won this debate. Concluding Note: Since no new arguments or responses are permitted following this speech, Pro may not address any arguments he dropped during this debate. Therefore, all dropped examples, claims, and so on form a body of clear offense unique to Con in this round. SOURCES1 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...; 3 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...Thank you!