Resolved: Social abortions ought not be legal in the US.

I'll go straight down the flow I guess. --> He agrees with definition of justice, therefore it is the evaluative standard for the round. 1. Pro has states that human rights are not at issue in his advocacy. Pro illustrates by claiming that there is a right against "dehumanization" that exists independent of human rights. --> I'm sorry, you have misunderstood my statement about rights, implying positive rights. I argued that the idea of rights exist outside of the realm of my VC. We have human worth not because of rights given to us by the government, but we have intrinsic human worth. You can drop my opponents statement #1 because it was on false ground. If what Pro has discovered trumps human rights, Pro must make the case why that is so. Pro has not offered that argument. --> Follow my logic from what I just stated. Human rights come from the impact of my VC, however positive rights are not necessary to achieve my advocacy. 2. A fertilized egg is not a human being, therefore it is properly "dehumanized." Pro seeks to have all abortion made illegal, including "morning after" situations in which the fertilized egg is a microscopic undifferentiated sphere of a few hundred cells. The sphere is "human" because it is made of human DNA, but it is not a "being" because it has no memories or any of other attributes that make up a "being." --> I have three responses: First, I do not seek to make ALL abortions illegal. I.e. only social abortions Second, yes DNA does make up a human Third, the clash comes down to the idea of "being." However, his attack can be dropped on a definitional evaluation. According to Merriam-Webster, being is defined as the state of existence. The fetus exists, therefore is can be linked to the term being. "Unfertilized eggs, sperm, and a surgically removed appendix are all "human" because they are all the products of human DNA and of nothing else." --> Extend my above logic. Since I have proven that: a. A fetus is a human (he concedes to the DNA argument) b. A fetus is a being (proven by definition) You can now extend this and use it as a drop to his case that the fetus is indeed a human-being. Furthermore, his sperm and appendix argument does not count because it doesn't apply to the "human-being" burden. 3. Pro implicitly acknowledges that fertilized eggs are not human beings by providing the exception for rape in his assertion. Neither Pro nor anyone else would allow a child to be killed at age three on the grounds of the child being the product of a rape. --> My opponent mistakes my argument again. I was merely making an analogy that it would be wrong to rape a rapist because that is violation of human worth. --> Furthermore, I already made the A Priori argument that this is not about rights. 4. More than half of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted naturally. No one has the slightest concern that human beings are beings are thereby destroyed. --> I have three responses: First, this argument is non-unique. Second, this argument has no resolutional impact. Third, the key word is natural. for example, there is a clear distinction between a person being struck by lightning, compared to a person shot in the face. One was of natural causes, the second was an act done by premeditation. The woman has a right to determine what to do with her body. Even if it were accepted that it is unjust to destroy a fertilized egg, which I do not grant, it is greater injustice to violate the rights of the woman to govern her own body. A fertilized egg is both within the woman and cannot survive independently of the woman, therefore it part of the woman. When Pro grants the exception to allow abortion over concern for the health of the woman, Pro grants that the woman has a greater right to live than the unborn. thus if rights are in conflict, the rights of the woman supersede. --> I have 2 responses: First, extend my VC logic to this. The right to govern a body only exists because we have human worth. Therefore, the standard of my criterion supersedes this attack. Second, right of a woman to govern her body ought not be justification for violent acts. 7. It is unjust to burden women with children they cannot properly care for. From the viewpoint of society, this is a substantially greater injustice than terminating a fertilized egg. --> since my opponent has not made a right's distinction in this point, do not make him make one in the next round. --> Basically my opponent's logic means that it would be justified to kill a child even after he/she was born, because he/she could not be properly cared for. 8. If Pro is correct that the alleged "dehumanization" from abortion has harmful effects upon society, then Pro should be able to site those harmful effects. --> I never argued societal solvency. I merely argued that there would be a societal stigmatization. Basically I am saying that undermining the human worth of an unborn child created an unraveling of societal morality. Morality is based on human worth. If human worth can be degraded, then morality has lost meaning. ========================================================================= --> My opponent has not provided a value structure. For this, he cannot win the round. I did place a note at the top of my case warning non-LD'ers. Under LD rules he cannot make a value structure in the next round, and thus he loses the entire debate because he does not provide a standard. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.