Abortion is a Violation of Human Rights

Sorry for the delayed response. I have had some responsabilities to tend to."Calling it a baby is appropiate. Your attack on what I choose to call it is unwarranted."I never said it was inappropriate and I didn't attack your argument. I just stated that using certin words is a ploy to manipulate the reader. I also suggested we were both going to be using the technique."The Constitution can not be breached by a baby, who is well below the legal age (often set at 10) that someone can be convicted of breaching the law or Constitution."The question is not "can the fetus be convicted for breaching the constitution?" The question is "Is the fetus in fact breaching the constitution?"If the fetus is breeching the constitution it should be the mothers right to decide how she claims sovereignty, not the governments."How a woman feels =/= what a woman is.A woman could feel like a slave, but if she isn't a slave, than the Government isn't breaching the Constitution."Actually, any person who feels a certain way is based on perception. Perception is reality, and any pregnant womans charecteristics falls into the description which fits the definition of slave. In short if a woman has the charecteristics of a slave and feels like a slave, she is a slave.Also, It's not the government doing the breaching it's the fetus."Here, the Pro has conceded that the mother does not own the Child, and thus dropped the argument:In the case of a mother and a fetus, the fetus is governed by its mother. Thus the child has no rights, unless the mother decides to grant the privilege."I admitted the mother can grant the privelage. However with goverment intrusion she could be forced to grant the privelage.There was no argument dropped, the child still has no rights unless the mother grants them or is forced to."The Pro is trying to show that the Baby has inslaved the Mother. The Baby is innocent of breaching the Constitution (14th Amendment), UN Declaration of Human Rights (Article 4) and the law because it is too young to be found guilty of breaching the prior mentioned documents."We never had to have this appear in a courtroom (from what I searched anyway). However, if I were a woman being forced to carry and birth a child I had no desire to carry. I would envoke my right to a fair trial and claim that I was a slave to that baby and whoever governed that childs rights is responsible for my captivity and suffering. This would make the government responsible as it allowed the baby to enslave me for its own agenda.If there hasn't been any trials on something similar it is completely speculative though." If the process (of childbirth) is natural, than it is above the law of men, and the child and nature can not be held guilty of breaching the law. There is another reason the Child is innoncent..."With that type of logic we would consider all parasites, diseases, and all types of natural harms as "above the law". It's common for humans to tranform nature to their desire."Dependant:A dependent is someone who is sustained by another person, such as a child supported by his or her parents.(4)"Contrary to your argument, dependant has more than one meaning. A parasite is a dependant, a pet is a dependent, a wart is a depndent.1. depending on a person or thing for aid, support, life, etchttp://dictionary.reference.com..."Slave Owner:Someone who holds slave.(5)Legally (as seen actually written out in the first Definition) a child is not a Slave Owner, but a Dependant. If Pro's argument was right, than we would all be guilty of breaking the 14th Amendment, and appearantly death would be a reasonable punishment. "Legally no, that's not to say a child doesn't fit the definition of slave owner if the mother is permitting it. We are all guilty of breaking the 14th amendment, but we don't perceive it as such, so it doesn't seem true."If you have a reason to believe the other person is attempting to do great bodily harm to you, you may defend yourself, but if you know for a fact that it isn't trying to, than you are in the wrong. I assume the Mother understands the Baby isn't actually trying to hurt her, and therefore she may not legally act against it. "Labor is great bodily harm, I never heard of anyone laughing and cheering while they were giving birth. It also has the potential to leave some women scarred for life."I will display the 4th Amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights again."The 14th amendment in context clearly states a person born (after birth) or naturalized (which they would not need to do if it was before birth).The UN amendment is an obvious contradiction. It takes away the security of a person, their liberties, and the potential life they possibly planned to protect the life of another. A woman obviously loses more from her woes than the fetus."4: Homicide"Homicide has not been commited unless you can prove it wasn't aborted to prevent future bodily suffering and agony. Otherwise it is self defense.Sorry, this is rushed. I still have a lot of things to accomplish.