Abortion in the 1st and 2nd trimester is immoral

I too enjoyed the last debate, your arguments deeply improved. DDO will make a debater outa you yet!1. What makes a human, human?One main argument I will use (SPA):"Consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain;Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems);Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control);The capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics;The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both. " [1]These are made as it is impossible to argue that a mere genetic case against abortion wages a war on women's rights, nor does it prove a fetus is a person. The concept of where killing is immoral is a tough one, BUT here is the problem: It defined as person. Killing a human is not morally wrong, killing a person is. Merely having biologic attributes are no enough to establish anything, my opponent must prove a fetus is a person, which under logic I see no reason how it can be a person. A fetus has none of these attributes. "Now if (1)-(5) are indeed the primary criteria of personhood, then it is clear that genetic humanity is neither necessary nor sufficient for establishing that an entity is a person. Some human beings are not people, and there may well be people who are not human beings. A man or woman whose consciousness has been permanently obliterated but who remains alive is a human being which is no longer a person; defective human beings, with no appreciable mental capacity, are not and presumably never will be people; and a fetus is a human being which is not yet a person, and which therefore cannot coherently be said to have full moral rights. " [1]SPB: A fetus and the community A fetus is not part of the community you and I and any other human being resides in. It resides INSIDE the mother, it is reliant on her, the fetus is not known to the outside world. A large part of being a person is social identity, and as stated last sentence a fetus has none. A fetus has no interaction with the outside world, none, it is stuck inside the woman, its just plain not in the society. Although miscarriages are tragic, if a woman has a miscarriage she will be upset, but if her recently born child dies of birth problems, it is more tragic. Why? Once the fetus is born it gains social identity, it now has seen, felt, and smelled the world, and people have seen it got documents for it etc. A fetus is therefore not equivalent to a human as it has no social identity. As Joyce Aurthur writes:"A big part of what makes us human beings is our ability to participate in society, or at least be recognized as a member of society. Fetuses are excluded both by necessity and custom. There can be no meaningful social participation for someone cocooned inside another's body. Fetuses do not even have a social identity, since names are not officially bestowed until after birth. In fact, a birth certificate marks the first legal recognition of a person's existence. And fetuses are generally not given ritualized burials when miscarried or aborted. It is quite telling that the death of a newborn infant is much more of a crushing blow to parents than an early miscarriage. People simply place a higher social value on infants than fetuses, and this convention is ingrained in our culture and history. " [2]SPC: Does a fetus have a right to life?Before verging head on into this, lets look at my main argument. The 5 precincts. Just based on this philosophically a fetus has no right to life, it does not work. It is not a person. Now lets look at SPA. It is not part of the society, it has never seen the world, it is socially void. It is not as valuable as a human. Now, lets look at this head on. As you conceded in this debate round 1, you admit abortion is ok in certain situations, but this concedes abortion is sometimes morally correct, conceding the right to life is of paramount importance, and that women's rights can trump a fetus' ones. They [they as pro lifers] do this to accommodate some human/women's rights, so you aren't seen as bigoted. They actually admit a fetuses rights trump the woman's if they think abortion is ok sometimes! [2]Also, we must look at there the baby lives. Does a baby have a right to reside in the woman? No, its a privilege its her home. One example, used by source 2 states the state cannot force people to donate organs even if it saves peoples lives. [2] This is correct. A fetus living in the body "saves a life", but does it mean the fetus has a right to live there? No, organs are peoples bodies, her womb is her body, hence her body trumps any right to life. I will also argue a quote:"Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being. For example, the state cannot force people to donate organs or blood, even to save someone's life. We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will." [2]This means EVEN IF my opponent proves a fetus has rights, he must prove it overrides the woman's choice of her body, even though it saves lives, this does not trump anything as we can see with organ donation limitations. A persons body is their temple, letting people live in the temple is protecting property rights and privacy, no matter if the hobo is hungry. My opponent must prove that a fetus' rights he claims them to have (which they dont) override a woman fully developed in the essential 5's rights. This is impossible. A fetus has no right to life. CONCLUSION:A fetus has no right to life under the 5 essential things a human needs to gain the status of a person (a human with rights). [1] A fetus, even if it does (my opponent needs to prove this) have a right to life is still less valuable then a born child as it is lacking the 5 senses and is devoid of a social identity. [2] And, even if a fetus has a right to life (my opponent still needs to prove this), he must prove a fetus' rights trump a woman's rights. As stated even if things saves a life, like organ donations, they should not be forced to do anything to save a life as it infringes privacy. So my opponent must also prove a fetus' rights trump a woman's rights. VOTE CON _______________[1] http://instruct.westvalley.edu...[2] http://www.abortionaccess.info...