Late term abortion is wrong, and ought to be illegal

Pro:"[Human Rights] …are the natural product of Human emotional feeling and reason which develops when people interact, and need a framework for their interaction." Again I say this is false. There is no such thing as human rights even in social structures. I use again the Hitler example. There was a social framework and government system in place. That didn't stop human life from being exterminated. Look at the Rwandan genocide. Again, social structures are in place but that didn't stop mass extermination. Social structures do not make or provide human rights. Pro says: "Not only is your statement refuted by the existence of social structures, or rules, in ALL groups of people ever encountered, but is refuted by logical evolutionary analysis. You said "in all groups." I have proven through the historical examples of Hitler's Nazi regime and the case of Rwandan genocide that human rights is not the result of social structures from "all groups." Since I proved that human rights does not result from social structures in "all groups" the con should win this argument. The pro side makes comments about logic but with no evidence. I have stated two historical accounts of social structures that do not lead to human rights. Pro says: "People don't have to show others "rights" if it is beneficial to the self as Mr. Hitler proved." - Absolutely, I never claimed that they did have to… Contradiction: You said "ALL groups." result in a framework of human rights. The Nazi's are group thus fit in with "all groups." No more need be said. Pro says:"their is no reason whatsoever that... (the babes in question) ought not be treated as persons" [sic] I say this is false. The one reason I give (not debated by pro) is that they ought not be treated as persons so we can exterminate them for population control. I gave a reason (whether good or not) why babies should not be treated as a person. This defeats your premise that "there is NO reason WHATSOEVER." Sorry, I just gave one. You have never defined what you mean by morality. What you deem immoral I deem moral. This is essentially a "he said, she said" argument. Morality is subjective. You say they ought to be treated as persons I disagree. The burden of proof is on you. I just simply debate and refute your argument. You have not proven your case. Pro says: "You essentially claim that the good of the self is what makes natural morality" I never said that. Trying to misrepresent what I said is not good debate etiquette. No where do I claim that statement. Sorry your conclusion is so off base. Pro says: I do not claim that there is no population problem, and I do not claim that it is not morally imperative that we in some way deal with it… First, you do not deny that population is not a problem (see round 2 pro's last paragraph). Secondly, it is not a moral imperative that you deal with it, but it is a debate imperative that you deal with it. Population control is my counter argument why babies ought not be treated as persons and be aborted. You may feel that it not worthy to argue but as a debater you must engage in debate because it is my argument, which you fail to counter. Babies ought to be not treated as persons because they are not persons and do not have human rights. Human rights is not guaranteed by social structure as pro has argued. In fact, aborting babies would help with the population control issue affecting our world. Pro has argued with absolutely no evidence for his claims. I have given two pieces of historical data disputing Pro's ideas. Secondly, pro has failed to counter the fact that abortion assists in population control. His reason is that he "feels" that my argument is immoral. Who cares what you feel? This is a debate and you cannot dispute fact with your personal feelings. Every argument Pro has brought forth I have debated whether one feels it is a strong or weak argument. The same cannot be said for pro. Thank you