Abortion

Premise I: Human Rights.Pro's case starts by saying that the definition of Human Rights is debatable, but doesn't give a definition of his own. Therefore, my definition stands. His next case is based on the claim that the Articles of the UNDHR are only for born persons. However, it says "...without distinction of any kind, such as... birth or other status." The terms "or other status" is what's important here, be it born or unborn. He then says the UNDHR doesn't specifically support fetus rights... That's like saying the Constitution doesn't support black rights because it doesn't specifically say "person and black persons." In fact, if a fetus is a living human, the UNDHR refers to them too."The status of the baby at birth as represented by a code."Pro then holds the UNDHR to a legal definition from Australia... Not one from the UN. The UNDHR does not specify such a code. Pro also brings up a "child version of the UNDHR." This isn't an official document, or one with weight. It's a rewording by an educational group to teach kids about the document. The UN actually does have a child version... The UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child (1)."Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth,"The document, accepted by the UN in 1989, claims that the child must be protected before birth as well. In the next paragraph, it says that this has been recognized by the UNDHR, disproving Pro's skepticism.Premise II: PersonhoodPro's case is a strawman, misrepresenting what I said. He refers to the definition of citizen... But this is about personhood. My case was that it says that any 'person' born/naturalized is a citizen, but that the right to life isn't given to the pre-defined "citizen," but to all persons, period. This is why I can't kill an illegal immigrant. Pro has the audience read his sources for him, instead of posting an argument. He should make his own arguments, not have his source make it for him.Pro drops the remainder of my definitions.Argument I: Living HumanPro says that you can't rob graves because of respect... The law does not deal in respect. It deals only in personhood. The law states that grave robbing is illegal because it is theft, read: invasion of the dead's right to property. On that same note, you can't take organs from a dead person without his consent, as even in death, he is entitled the right to his property.Pro has claimed that the 12 characteristics of biological life are wrong because he wants sourcing. This is laughably dodging the science behind life. Even a basic 6th grade Biology class teaches us of at least 7 characteristics. However, I will post my sources.Organization /Genes / Adaption / Homeostasis / Metabolism [2]Response / Reproduction [3]Growth / Excretion / Respiration / Feeding / Movement: [4]Pro's case is continued only by dropping my claim that the fetus is human. He tried to explain that a person is not human, but never actually addressed my case saying it was human. Claiming that the Zygote is living, but not necessarily human, is unsustainable. Almost all biologists concede that the unborn is human. A review by Irving, M.A., Ph.D., published in International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999 (5), concludes that the fetus is human. A book on Embryology by renowned biologist Kieth Moore writes: "...This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."(6) Robert Moore, M.D., wrote in his book, Embryology: "Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage."(7)There is no debate over the humanity of the unborn. Meanwhile, Pro has given no reason why the fetus is not human.Argument II: Conflict of RightsPro's case here is based on having addressed my Argument I. However, I've shown his case dropped my own, and falls short of a rebuttal. If the fetus is a Living Human, as I have proven it is, it's Right to Life is more important then the Right of Choice. In fact, the Right to Choice here ONLY exists if the fetus is not human, as one does not have to right to choose to kill someone outside of self-defense.Argument III: All Abortions v Some AbortionI'm not sure I understand Pro's case. One stat is about abortion in cases of rape, and one is about cases of saving the mother's life. They aren't meant to relate... They are meant to show that neither case takes up more than a percent of total abortions.Pro says my case on Abortion in cases of rape being questionable is wrong because a) it's false and b) no sources. Pro doesn't use sources here either, so the second case is hypocritical. The first case is wrong in that my statement is a truism... It's not arguable that there are people who disagree with abortion in cases of rape. Gallup claims 22% of people oppose Abortion in cases of rape (and is continuously increasing)(8). Therefore at least half of all pro-lifers disagree with abortion in cases of rape... Far from Pro's claim that my statement is false.Pro's case assumes rape is relevant in the discussion of who has rights. Your right to life is not revoked because of your father, unless Pro can find a place in the UNDHR or the Constitution claiming that the Right to Life is determined by means of conception. Instead, the UNDHR says that ALL humans get the Right to Life, with no distinction of any kind, rape included. The Fourteenth Amendment claims all persons get the Right to Life. Not just wanted persons conceived outside of rape.Rebuttal I: Roe v WadePro starts R2 by claiming Roe V Wade gives women th right to abortion... This is circular logic, as Roe v Wade is essentially the law in question when debating Abortion. Therefore, his first argument is that A is right, because A says so. It's like saying God wrote the Bible because the Bible said so.Roe v Wade has been criticized by a vast number of judges for being unconstitutional. Not that Abortion was unconstitutional, but that the court case was (9). Even pro-choice Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg agrees (10). The case claimed that, had the personhood of the fetus been established, Roe's case fell apart. But the Judge deemed that because each state legalized abortion in cases where the mother was in danger, the fetus could not be a person. This is because these are "exceptions" to personhood, and that was constitutional. However, anyone can tell that this is a conflict of rights, not an exception to personhood. The Judge rationalized a reason to decide in Roe's favor.Rebuttal II: Rights of the MotherThis case is founded in a philosophical performance-based criteria for a person. A person must be able to sustain himself separately, in this case. However, coma patients and people on iron lungs can't sustain themselves, but are still persons. Performance-based criteria are begging the question... They ask us to accept a premise without explaining why it's the case. In this example, you must be self-sustaining to be a human... But why? What makes that a requirement? I have given the actual definition of person, and proven that the fetus is a living human. That is the only requirement. Also, being a separate human is about being unique from the parent, of which the fetus is. Even as a zygote, the fetus is separate and unique. By Pro's logic, being on an iron lung means you are now apart of the iron lung, and not a unique human anymore.The rest of this case is built on the idea that the Mother has rights, and therefore that's that... But if the fetus is human, he has rights, and a conflict occurs (see Argument II). Pro assumes that because the Mother has rights, hers are the end-all of rights.Rebuttal III: Beneficial Cases.Pro's case about the health of the Mother is nullified, as such cases makeup less than 1% of all abortions. Therefore it holds no impact on the resolution.Regarding safer methods... How dangerous breaking the law is isn't the law's concern. Making murder illegal doesn't stop one from doing it... It just makes it more dangerous. As famous pro-choicer, Mary Warren, wrote: "the fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it..." But to put Pro's concerns to rest, less than 150 deaths occurred annually from illegal abortions prior to Roe v Wade, as opposed to 1.1 million unborn killed in legal abortions (11). This defies the claim that deaths from illegal abortions will be a critical issue.The remainder of Pro's cases is that abortion can prevent a child from being born in bad circumstance. However, these cases can be solved with adoption or childcare aid. Even then, it's immoral to kill someone for what they might become (be it unwanted or poor.) Levitt and Donahue’s studies finding a link between abortions and crime/unwanted children was a solo act. No other study ever found the same results. Joyce did a study and found no correlation in Pro's favor (12). But John Lott did a study that found the Abortion led to an increase in unwanted children and crime. Of over 6000 regressions, all but one implied a 0.5 - 7% increase in murder rates and number of unwanted children (13).However, abortion has great negative effects that outweigh any good that Pro could bring up. Within 8 weeks after having the abortion, 55% of women expressed guilt, with over 40% reporting nervous disorders. Over a third experienced sleep disturbances, and 31% had regrets about their decision. Over a tenth had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor (14). Abortion is not healthy, and it is not beneficial.Sources: http://pasted.co...Conclusion:Abortion violates the rights of the Living Human Unborn, and is therefore unconstitutional.