Resolved: Abortion ought to be legal.

Pro, I never asked you to "answer" anything. As Pro, you get first speech. You don't have the option to rebutt (which I gather is what you intended to do). I'd recomend you stop complaining. Usually, the first argument is a more brief, opening statement if you will. Now I'll just go through Pro's arguments one by one, and show the voters why they fail.1: Economic ArgumentAs to your statement that I have ignored your practicality arguments, there's good reason for that. The reason being is that no one, and I repeat, no one would value money over human life. I'll show you what I mean using a hypothetical plan.My plan is decimation. Kill 1/10 people on earth. Now hear me out. We'll save money. Less mouths to feed, less people to send to college, less expense placed on families. 1/10 less money spent on humans.Do you see where I'm going with this, Pro? If the fetus is a human, then you can't kill it, even if it might save you some money. Because killing humans is wrong. Saving money through killing humans is never justified, and it certainly isn't justified because it'd cost more to adopt them rather than abort them.2: Woman's right to her bodyYou also state that "Human right DO NOT give someone the right to another person's body." True. This is exaclty, exactly my argument. You don't have the right over the fetus's body, as it is another person's body. The fetus has completely different DNA than the mother, so the baby is not a part of the mother's body, it merely resides there. (1) The mother does not have the right to the fetus's body, because the fetus is not the mother's body in the same way a kidney or a spleen would.3: When life begins is subjectiveThis is blatantly false. Science has shown again and again that fertilization is the begining of a new human life, as new human DNA is formed. Several scientific textbooks acclaim this fact."Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed[.]" (2)"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization … is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." (3)"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)[.] … The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." (4)If we say that a dog's life begins at fertilization, a cat's life begins at fertilization, then why are humans any different? Instead, scientific fact points to fertilization, or conception, as the moment a new life, a new human life, begins, not the moment the child is expeled from the birth cannal.4: The fetus is human, but it is not human lifeIn fact, the differences between a fetus and a 15 year old, for example, is1) Age (development)2) Location3) Level of independencyAs we have seen, the proponents of slavery offered location to deny humanity. "Because he is on my property, he is non-human. But if he was in the North, he'd be human as any." In the same way, this argument is used to deny the fetus's humanity. "Because he is in my womb, he is non-human. But if he was outside my womb (i.e. born), he'd be as human as you or me." Can we not see what is flawed with this argument? A human ought to be considered a human regardless of his or her location. If a person moves to another country, he or she ought to remain human. Should this not also apply to a 9 month old child that moves 3 feet away from his or her mother's womb?Pro also states the fetus's cells are dependent on the mother. This is true. The fetus is dependent on the mother for food. The fetus is dependent on the mother for survival.But this doesn't change for the next 13 or so years! A newborn child is still dependent on the mother (or it's guardian) for food. A six year old is still dependent on his parents for survival. Without someone to get him food or shelter, he would surely die. He remains dependent. Does this lack of complete independence rule out children as human? Is this truely a requirement for humanity?Of course not. To argue this to be true is completely illogical, and is unsound reasoning.Another example of this shoddy reasoning is that of sentience. Now that Pro has brought in new term, I'll define, as Pro has failed to offer a definition of what he now argues to define humanity.Sentience: able to perceive or feel things. (5)This means that if someone is no longer able to percevie or feel things, they cease being human. Does this mean that someone in a coma ceases being human? Does this mean that someone who gets into a major car accident, survives, but is unable to use/feel his legs is non-human in the leg area?Of course not. Once again, Pro's definition fails.6: If human DNA makes one human, then removing a tumor is killing a human life.Wrong again, Pro. This is an example of the human in question exerting their right over their body, over the cells that contain his or her DNA. This is the reason they are able to remove these tumors: because they contain his/her DNA. The fetus, on the other hand, contains different DNA. Thus, you don't have the authority or the right to kill the fetus, as it contains different DNA from you. You get to choose if you want the tumor operated on. The patient down the hall from you doesn't have that right.7: Although the fetus is a potential human life, this is illogical reasoningThis isn't my reasoning. I'm saying that the fetus IS a human life, not a potential human life. This argument must be dismissed.8: Con's argument is only an appeal to emotion.False. If you'd like, you can check my sources. My logic also checks out. Here, I'll show you my sylogysim.All organisms with human DNA are humans.All fetuses are organisms with human DNA.Therefore, all fetuses are humans.Pro, you've conceded to my minor premise, so all I must do is show that all organisms with human DNA are humans, which, I believe I've sufficently shown.Otherwise, you'd have to show me why not all humans should get human rights, which might not go over too well.9: Roe v. Wade is a good source.Is Dred Scott v. Sandford a good source? It's a Supreme Court ruling, 7-2 majority favoring slavery. Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court ruling, 7-2 majority favoring abortion. Why is Dred Scott v. Sandford a bad source?Because we realized it was faulty. Because we realized black people were still people. Because the court realized it's mistake and reversed it.Supreme courts don't decide what is or isn't moral. They decide what the law thinks at that time. And at this time, the law couldn't be more wrong.I think I've gone over the majority of Pro's arguments. If there are any I missed, I'm sure Pro will be more than happy to inform me in his next round. :)Go ahead, Pro.Sources:(1) http://www.nsta.org...(2) Human Embryology & Teratology (Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller [New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996], 5-55)(3) Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology [3rd edition, New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001, p. 8](4) Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3(5) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...