Abortion should be illegal

1.My opponent has demonstrated blatant disregard for an essential element of my case in which I made the distinction between humans (i.e. people*) and persons. In the interest of clarifying this subject, here are Oxford Dictionary's definitions of the two terms:Human (n.) - Of or characteristic of people; of or belonging to the genus HomoPerson (n.) - A human being regarded as an individual under law*In this context, the collective for human is humans or people, and the collective for person is persons.Once again, while a fetus' DNA allows it to be classified scientifically as human, it is not considered an individual under the law. When I talk about human rights, as legal rights granted to legally accepted persons, we see that they are, internationally, not applicable to fetuses.For example, we can look at the National Conference of State Legislature (www.ncsl.org) of the USA and its description of fetal homicide laws: "[Feticide laws] have focused on the harm done to a pregnant woman and the subsequent loss of her pregnancy, but not on the rights of the fetus." The description goes on to state that while the mother is protected under law, the fetus is not, and that advocates prefer "criminalizing an assault on a pregnant woman and recognizing her as the only victim."The crux of my opponent's case (Round 2) is that a fetus is considered human from conception and that even a human zygote has equal legal protection under federal law. They have provided a list of life processes that an organism must carry out to be considered biologically living, all of which are criteria filled by the zygote. I have made no attempts to contest the fact that a zygote is alive, or that a fetus is, zoologically, human. I agree that we can define a fetus as a human being due to the presence of human DNA within its cells.The problem with your case, however, is that even a fetus is not considered a person, legally or commonly. A zygote, and later, a fetus, is not a fully developed human, only a collection of cells carrying out life processes. Other examples of living cells include cancer cells and vascular tissue in plants. When we look at the first, we seem to have no problem killing off cancer cells in the interest of promoting a person's health, wellbeing, and long-term comfort via removing the undesirable cluster of cells that violates the host's bodily integrity (does this sound familiar?). When it comes to the latter, layers of tissue within plants, we see that they may be classified similarly to the cells of a zygote in that they are, in the technical sense of the word, alive, however they may be killed for the sake of human survival and the need for nutrient consumption. We can compare this to fetal cells, which may need to be killed just to keep the mother alive, in drastic cases.2.In reference to the two sources you have presented:I. Lejeune is a poor source for this debate not because he is Catholic but because his Catholicism interferes with his perception of abortion; Lejeune's "religious" oppositional arguments are not grounded in fact and are merely spinoffs of his religious beliefs.II. The quote taken from Locke, i.e.,["No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind."]acts as a direct contradiction to the rest of your case for two reasons - the first that this quote refers only to persons rather than to humans. The term "mankind" may be assumed to refer to legal persons rather than humans, prioritizing persons over other living things. The second contradiction here is that even if you want to assume that the words "mankind" and "another" in the quote refer to humans, you are once again considering a fetus as being not equally as important, but even more important than its mother, countering Locke's statement. "When his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind" - if you are pregnant and you do not wish to be, John Locke here is in agreement that an abortion is reasonable and that you may put your own needs above the so-called "preservation of mankind."3.You've then gone on to state that "a single, just newly fertilized egg...has acquired human rights as it is now alive and the government must protect it." Unfortunately, you once again neglected my proposal of the term "human rights" as being in reference to legal persons rather than humans (and failed to propose an alternate definition for the term, so I am going by the assumption that you accept this definition). If you truly believe that every living thing has equal human rights under the law, and that it is the government's responsibility to protect every living organism, treating it as a person, then you should immediately refrain from eating any animals which have been slaughtered for food and from directly or indirectly funding corporations responsible for raising livestock.Here we can see that regardless of your personal dietary preferences, it is absolutely unreasonable to assume that every living thing, be they animals, plants, protists, bacteria, or fungi, ought to be granted (equal) human rights under the law. In fact, animals raised for slaughter are more competent, sentient, and independent than fetuses, so if anything, we should see their rights as being legally and societally superior.4.Your second contention is hung up on a small idea that holds no real value. Abortion may, in fact, lead to further health complications, however I reiterate that abortion is performed only with the consent of the mother. Let's look at a different example - cigarettes. The scientific community has succeeded in informing the general public of the health risks posed to both oneself and others by smoking cigarettes. Regardless, the sale and use of cigarettes is still legal in much of North America. This is because the assumption is made that people will use good discretion in smoking and will not smoke if unwilling to subject themselves to the potential medical consequences.Returning to abortion, we see several things:1. The medical risk from abortion is vastly lower than that posed by cigarettes and nicotine. While it may set the stage for potential problems, it does not by any means guarantee health concerns.2. Abortions are entirely voluntary. Nowhere in your proposition does it say that women shouldn't be coerced into having abortions, just that abortions shouldn't be legal. If you do not want to have an abortion for medical or other reasons, that's fine. The concept of being pro-choice means allowing those who need or want to abort a chance to do so. There are dangers associated with activities such as driving a car, however those are not legally prohibited because as a society, we respect that people have freedom of choice and are able to use discretion in determining whether the benefits of a procedure such as abortion outweigh the risks. It is unreasonable to assume that the former will or will not present itself as superior to the latter in every case; calling for the need for abortion to be an available option.3. Abortion does not harm any other person. Consider the effects of second- or third-hand smoking, detrimental to those in close proximity to a smoker, in contrast to abortion, a personal and private decision that only affects oneself. You failed entirely to elaborate on your second contention and explain why the "after-effects" of abortion are significant enough, and/or detrimental enough to others to necessitate the complete prohibition of abortions through legal means. For this, we can, at the moment, entirely disregard your second argument.5.Finally, you looked at the life and welfare of the mother (third contention). It appears your argument has, perhaps unintentionally, been cut short, so I will address the information you have presented thus far. Your first assertion was an oh-so-intelligently phrased:"You shouldn't have been having sex in the first place."Ignoring the fact that individual sexual preferences and activity are none of the government's business, this debate is about abortion, not abstinence. Next, as you look at the practical failure of contraceptives, we see once again that your whole contention is irrelevant. We are discussing the procedure of abortion, not means of prevention of pregnancy.Lastly, looking briefly at rape and cases of assault wherein pregnancy is unavoidable, we see your third contention in its entirety fall. Not only is it a violation of bodily integrity to be raped and then forced to carry a child, it is unreasonable to hold the mother accountable for the pregnancy. Rape is not equivalent to sex, so even if everyone were to follow your rigid, unrealistic "abstinence-only" plan, there would still be cases in which women become victims of assault and have the need to terminate a pregnancy.6.In this debate, my presented contentions were as follows.1. We must respect a mother's right to bodily autonomy, and by forcing someone to carry a fetus to term we neglect this principle2. In the case of a pregnancy, the only individual who is a legal person and subject to human rights is the one who is pregnant, and we cannot allow ourselves to create a false hierarchy of rights in which fetuses take priority3. Forcing a child into being born oftentimes overlooks the welfare of both child and parent and causes poor quality of life (i.e., there is always a reason to have an abortion, it is not an offhand decision)My opponent has not been able to successfully refute any of these.In addition, I have broken down the ideas upon which my opponent's case stands to illustrate that there is no reasonable argument to deny the freedom of choice to anyone with the potential to become pregnant. For these reasons, the Con side has carried this debate; the motion must not stand.