Resolved: Abortion should be banned

Sadly, his defense has much to be desired. For whatever reason, Pro has decided to deviate from the organized structure, mixing up rebuttals. I have made numbered list of them below. Pro's Defenses: 1. Fetuses have all human characteristics. "other characteristics are needed to be a human, a fetus has all of the need. " Sadly, this was the end of Pro's argument. He gave no facts. He did not even mention the qualities I listed that made humans unique: factors like abstract though, communication, independence, self-awareness, capacity to learn, etc. [3] None of these are observed in 1st trimester fetuses. Pro has yet to make a make for a fetus's personhood beyond ridiculous notions of genetic makeup and organ semblance. EXTEND MY REBUTTAL 1C 2. MISINTERPRETED ARGUMENT: Animals vs. humans. Pro claimed that having anything resembling a nervous system or circulatory system made it human. I states that these are qualities of almost all mammalian creatures, and not distinct humans. This argument was not contended. 3. Murdering a human vs. an animal. This point is irrelevant as Pro has yet to prove that fetuses are humans. 4. STRAW MAN: Intelligence Pro says "my opponent claims just because the fetus has little knowledge then it is an invalid human. " I never claimed this. The specific arguments are outlined above in the argument Pro dropped. 5. Having Facial Features Makes a Fetus Human This is clearly false. All mammals have facial features. This is not a unique human quality. 6. Pro's Conceded point. "Humans are relating to characteristics of humans. " I am perplexed by how my opponent can state this while defending his statement that fetuses are human with characteristics that are very common. 7. Fetuses Having Human Characteristics. "A fetus actually does have the characteristics of a human. " My opponent again states this, but, as before, this is the end of his argument. He provides NO justification or evidence. 8. STRAW MAN: Dependance. "Dependence isn't an issue, any people are dependent. " Pro fails to see the counter-argument for what it is. "Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it. " [1] Fetuses are dependent on one individual. 9. SELF-CONTRADICTION: Infant vs. Fetus This is perhaps my favorite counter-argument. Pro cites a quote from a source that contradicts his argument. Pro's source and argument: "'the infant is unquestionably alive, unquestionably human and viable outside the mother, whereas the fetus may not be. ' [5] With this information a fetus is undoubtedly a human. " The source explained that infants are alive, human, and viable outside the mother, but that fetuses "may not be. " This contradicts Pro's argument that fetuses are "undoubtedly human. " 10. Fetuses are alive. This is not something I ever rebutted. I agree, fetuses are alive. 11. Human=homo sapien This argument has already been rebutted. Pro chose to ignore it. Again. I will repost my argument for Pro: There is no such thing scientifically as "human" DNA. There is only homo sapien DNA. Simply because something has homo sapien DNA does not make it "human. " If this were true, my dead skin cells would be humans, making me, under Pro's logic, a mass murderer. This is quite obviously an absurd notion. 12. IRRELEVANT. Fetuses are slaves. "Further more slaves used to be non-humans, because they where the property. [15] Under you logic of the fetus is property and property does not have rights then you are using the same logic as pro slavery advocates. [15]" Pro has diverged from scientific arguments to those of past societal acceptance. The fact that people believed slaves to be non-human is irrelevant if the facts differ. 13. Argumentum ad Populum. "Many religions see abortion as immoral. [8] My point is this already is a large sect of people who will view it as immoral. " Self-explanatory. 14. Clarification "My opponent claims as abortion is legal, then abortion is not murder. The majority of my arguments show it as a "killing". " For Pro's sake, I will agree that abortion is the taking of life, just like stepping on a bug is killing. 15. All killing ought be illegal. "As abortion is a killing it ought to be treated as immoral and a breach of law. " I have already refutes this argument: This is false. Killing is legal in cases of self-defense, the death penalty, war, etc. To say the government punishes all forms of killing is patently false and ignorant. 16. The 14th Amendment. Pro initially brought up points about the Declaration of Independence (although he mistakenly thought it to be the Constitution), but the Declaration is not law. The 14th amendment is a valid point. However, it grants the right to life to "any person. " [2] My opponent has yet t make a case for a fetus's personhood, thus, this is irrelevant. 17. Summary of flawed arguments. Pro again repeats the same refutes arguments. He then claims I dropped arguments, yet he refuses to name which. 18. Abortion and Breast Cancer/ Abortion Health Effects. Pro claims abortion "causes. .. cancer," has "detrimental health effects," and increases risk of things he doesn't name. I will accept all of this as true; however, this is not a case against abortion. Smoking has all of the same effects. Pro rebuts this by saying that isn't true for people who only smoke once a year. This is irrelevant. Countless things that "cause. .. cancer," have "detrimental health effects," and increases risk" of harmful things are legal. Until such time as they are not, it is illogical for abortion to be on these grounds. 19. Pain at 8 weeks. "As I stated last round, (no refutation) A fetus feels pain at 8 weeks. [16]" Pro claims that this is an argument for personhood. I don't even see the need to address this. Plants can feel pain, mammals can feel pain, fishes can feel pain, etc. Killing all of these things is not illegal. Accidentally running into someone causes pain, but we don't charge these people with first degree murder. DROPPED ARGUMENTS 1. Having homo sapien DNA does not constitute personhood. 2. Having the semblance of a nervous or circulatory system does not constitute personhood. 3. Fetuses do not posses defining human qualities like "self-awareness, spiritual curiosity and philosophical musings. We possess the capacity for mathematics, language, invention, mechanical adaptation and music. " 4. Arguments from Religion are irrelevant. 5. Not all killing is murder 6. Abortion is not murder. (He showed it was "killing," not murder, or any punishable offense). 7. Health Risks are irrelevant8. Argument 1C. CONCLUSION: Pro dropped a staggering number of my points and failed to defend any of his. My opponent also conceded that to be human, one must possess qualities of humans, yet he never proves 1st trimester fetuses have any of these qualities. His argument for personhood also contradicts his sources. Most of his contentions were irrelevant or were logical fallacies. Pro failed to defend how morality has any bearing on the law. I urge readers to look at points presented. I will not plea for a Con vote, but I believe readers should vote for the side that best defended their arguments/refuted their opponent's arguments. Sources:EXTEND SOURCES FROM PREVIOUS ROUND (for quotes taken from that round's argument) [1] . http://www.abortionaccess.info...... [2] . http://www.law.cornell.edu...