the topic of this debate is abortion and i believe that this is wrong because ur killing humans okay

Thanks for the challenge. "my opening argument is that abortion should be illegal b/c that is basically kilng a human being okay son so see me" First of all, my opponent must provide backing on what a human being actually is. According to the Marriam-Webster's dictionary, a human is: : a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens: man; broadly : hominid — huï¿½manï¿½like Listen to the pronunciation of humanlike \-mən-ˌlï¿½k\ adjective And it defines a fetus as: : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth And the definition of develop we can look at: 1 a: to go through a process of natural growth, differentiation, or evolution by successive changes b: to acquire secondary sex characteristics _____________________________________________________ Now to argue my opponent's case. My opponent has made an ethical argument, clear and simple. His only argument against abortion is that it is, quote, "...basically kilng a human being okay..." Ethical issues are, in the United States, brought up in court. Now my opponent has argued that abortion should be illegal, so we will discuss law in this argument. When the government passes laws that someone thinks infringes their rights, they may sue. The questions, though, that we must ask are as follows: 1. What are my basic rights? 2. By virtue of what do I have these? 3. What are the limits of these rights? 4. When may the government interfere, restrict my liberty? We can take the Griswald vs. Connecticut Supreme Court case into consideration here. From 1879, CT had a law that made it a crime (punishable by fine or prison) to use, distribute, or advise the use of contraception. Many other states had similar laws. Estelle Griswald opened first family planning clinic in CT, advising contraceptive use, and distributing it. She was arrested. She sued on the grounds that the law was violation of the U.S. Constitution. How was it a violation? The court ruled, 7 to 2, that it was a violation of marital privacy. This isn't in the constitution, you say, this right to privacy. What one must realise, and what will help in my point against my opponent's abortion claim, is that there are enumerated rights and prenumbral rights. Enumerated are the ones that are explicitly mentioned in the constitution, and prenumbral are rights that implied. So, the court was claiming that marital privacy is a penumbral constitutional right implied in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 19th amendments. Now lets go to how Griswald could even have rights in the first place. To have full American rights, you must first be an American citizen. To be an American citizen, you must be born in America. Griswald was an American citizen, therefore all of her rights are present, enumberated and prenumbral. Someone who is not born in America (as we defined above, a fetus is unborn) does not possess American rights. To make something illegal in the United States, it must violate the law: Illegal : not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game) Therefore, taking a fetus' life is not technically illegal, because a fetus is not a legal U.S. citizen and therefore has no U.S. rights. A fetus, actually, is technically not a citizen of any country and has no rights at all. A few more things my opponent should consider before his rebuttal: 1. What about a spontaneous abortion? Should we arrest women who have miscarriages? Is that manslaughter? 2. What about therapeutic abortion? Should we arrest women who have abortions preformed so they will not die during labor, have massive physical damage, or psychological damage? 3. Should we not preform abortions on a fetus that is grotesquely abnormal?