Abortion should be illegal in the United States

"If I can show that a fetus is human, I will also prove that it is a person, and thus entitled to the rights provided and protected in the Bill of Rights." -Fair enough. "The first question that must be asked is 'what defines humanity?'. What answer would an abortionist give? He might say that a human is a thinking, breathing, independent Homo sapien. The trouble is, a definition like this leaves out those clearly human. For example, a person in a coma..." -No. My opponent has made a definition up for me, which I do not accept. -My definition of human being is: "any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens." http://dictionary.reference.com... -My opponent's whole case about people in comas are irrelevant to this debate. Now, there are 2 more words which need definitions: -individual - a single organism capable of independent existence. http://dictionary.reference.com... -organism - a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes. http://dictionary.reference.com... "In short, a fetus is different from sperm or egg cells in the fact that sperm or egg cells only contain half the DNA needed to form a human being. By themselves they will never become a human. They are incomplete. However, when united they become a single, unique human life, separate from the mother by its own DNA and gender, which will define its characteristics for the rest of its life. At no point afterwards does it radically change and become human. It already is." -Let me remind you of the definition of human being: any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens. And individual: a single organism capable of independent existence. And organism: a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes. A fetus does not fit the definitions of any of these words. The fetus is entirely dependent on the host woman. If it's host dies, it will die. The fetus only has the potential to be a human being, it never just is a human being. Because it is unable to sustain independent life, and it uses the organ systems of the host woman, it is, physically and hormonally, part of the woman's body. "Now that I have clearly shown that a fetus is indeed human (and thus entitled to human rights)" -No, you didn't. "It seems that my opponent is defending a something by saying that, if it becomes illegal, it may potentially hurt those who choose to break that law." -On the matter of abortion, yes I am. "Here is an equivalent example: a burglar breaks into a house and is injured by the homeowners protecting their property. Afterwards, there is a movement to legalize burglary so that, in the future, burglars will not be harmed trying to violate another's rights. The logic behind the movement is absurd; if you act outside the law, then the law cannot protect you from the harm you would bring to yourself." -Equivalent example? I beg to differ. Burglarly is defined as: "Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny). No physical breaking and entering is required; the offender may simply trespass through an open door. Unlike robbery, which involves use of force or fear to obtain another person's property, there is usually no victim present during a burglary." (1) How are abortion and burglarly equivalent? Abortion should be legal because a woman's life is at risk, among other reasons. A burglar knowingly commits a crime under his/her own will knowing that his/her life is at risk. A mother who is raped does not conceive a baby under her own will. Your example and logic is ridiculous. "Also, my source does not show that legalization of abortion decreased deaths caused by abortion." -Actually, it does. It shows that deaths from abortions decreased after Roe vs. Wade. Thank you for proving my point. The rest of my opponent's 2nd round argument centers around refuting my points. The only way he refutes my points is by claiming that fetuses are human beings. I proved that fetuses are not human beings, so all my points stand. He tried only twice to refute my points without mentioning fetuses as humans, so I will refute what he said now. "Much the same was done 150 years ago, when slavery was legal. Back then, slaves were counted as only 2/3 of a person on the census. Once again, history repeats itself." -No, slaves were counted as 3/5 as a person, not 2/3. This was because of the Three-Fifths Compromise (2) not because of viability. Please learn history before you start preaching it. "My opponent's application of the 13th amendment is faulty. To apply it to parenthood would justify parents abandoning their children." -It isn't applied to parenthood. Parenthood is different than a woman carrying a fetus. So the 13th amendment does count as a constitutional reason on why a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. My opponent did not even try to refute my points about the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. My opponent's whole debate centers on a fetus being a human being, which it is not. My opponent has failed to prove that a fetus is a human being, and I have proved that a fetus is not a human being. All my points stand, my opponent has none. ---Sources--- (1) http://criminal.findlaw.com... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org...