Abortion is a Violation of Human Rights

"But if he could technically breach the Constitution, it wouldn't matter because he can't be held guilty or responsible for doing it."It technically is enslaving the woman. Saying "it is not legally rsponsible" is not the same as saying "it didn't breach the constitution."" Because) Perception = RealityTherefore) I perceive being a cat = I'm a cat now."If you had the charecteristics of a cat, you would be a cat."This is hypocritical and contradictary to the point of ending Con's argument. He says that the Child may be aborted because it has made the mother a slave (although I've already discussed that.) but than making his second argument about how the mother legallyowns the child, and the childhasnofreedomofactionor rights unless it's granted..."It's not hypocritical because I have stated both are potential slaves, the mother is the deciding factor, UNLESS the government enforces birth."That definition was from Con's R2 argument. He has contradicted himself and displayed hypocrisy with two of his three arguments. Even without the Defintion, his arguments as he says them are hypocritical and contradictary."Notice there is no explenation of how I contradicted myself."The Con's Argument:The Child owning the Mother = breach of 14th amendment.The Mother owning the Child =/= breach of 14th amendment."The fetus has no ability to control the conscious functions of the mother, which grants the mother full rights to her body. Also the fetus has no perception to clarify itself as a slave."(If) The Mother is a Slave:(Than) The Child is a Slaver Owner:(But) The Child is a Dependent and not a Slave Owner:(Therefore) The Mother is not a Slave."Both scenarios are true. The mothers perception is the deciding factor."The Con claims the Government would have an agenda for banning abortion... The Agenda would be the preservation of human rights.The Con obviously only values rights when they are his own, and seeks to void anyone else's if they inconvenience him."Ad hom.I have nothing to gain other than ensuring conscious citizens are able to maintain their rights and liberties they deserve."It is 'natural' to fight off diseases, it is not natural for a mother to call for her child's execution because she can't be bothered. A Baby isn't a parasite however..."Many things in nature kill their offspring for "inconveniences". Some animals even eat their young.http://www.livescience.com..."The concept of a Parasite is that it isn't supposed to be there. The woman's body was literally made to host it, and to create it. because the Woman's body was designed to host the Baby, the Baby can not be considered a Parasite. it is a Mutual Relationship(2), and not a Parasitic Relationship. In fact, the mother actually gains a lot from the relationship.."There are healthy and unhealthy parasites. The person carrying the parasites is who determines if the parasite is bothersome enough to need treatment or not."The definition of Parasite is too broad, and doesn't fully pinpoint or discribe the complexity of a Mother-Baby relationship."There are not many definitions of parasite. par·a·site [par-uh-sahyt] Show IPA noun 1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. 2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others. 3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc. All of which defines a baby-mother relationship if the baby is unwanted by the woman carrying it. Perception is key."Also, the Woman's body gives the Baby nutrients. The Child doesn't just 'take' the nutrients and support, it is given it by the mother's body. The body ultimately has final say, which is why your heart beats without you making it."You talk as if the mother has consious control of her maternal functions once impregnated, which is not true."The Con claims he would exercise his right to a fair trail. However, since the punishment the Con seeks is the Death Penalty, it would require a crime so bad that the Death Penalty is required. Looking at the list (by state) of crimes punishable by death, nothing the Baby had or could have committed appears on it.(5)Even breaching the Constitution isn't punishable by Death. You would have to wait until the child is born, then sentence him to prison. Except that you couldn't, because in a fair trial, the Child couldn't be convicted because he is under the age of innocence, and can't be legally held guilty of enslaving the mother, or breaching any laws or amendments."I hope people reading this has comprehended my arguments better than con, I know I lack some communication skills but he totally ignored what my "fair trial" argument was trying to establish.The government would be held responsible for the enslavement if I were to win that specific case."To began, a parasite is a parasite, not a dependent. The Con clearly does not know how Legal Dependents work."Pro used a random dictionary for his definition. How was I to know he wanted to stick with legal terms if he didn't specify? Granted we are talking about the constitution, but I was using terms most of us would undestand and use. I don't expect everyone to be a lawyer."Legally, the legal definition says what the child is regardless of anything or anyone else's opinion. Again, the Con cherry-picks who he feels has rights. The Mother doesn't dictate what the child is under law... Only the Law can, and the Law dictates that the child is a dependent. Nature built him to be dependent on his Mother, and again (as Con failed to account for in my Prior argument), Nature is above the law.We see the flaw in Cons logic that a mother chooses what rights her child has here;A) Child is 15B) Mother lets child drink alcoholC) Child still broke the law"Legally a slave can be a dependant. As for the rest of his comments they are dribble compared to the scenarios we are disussing.We are talking about a fetus and a woman. Not a mother and her teenager.A better comparison would be:A)Woman as conjoined twins.B)Mother decides to split twins for personal reasons.C)1 of the twins die.orA)Mother is pregnantB)Mother has cancerC)Mothers treatment of cancer kills baby"Pregnancy = possible bodily harm of human mother.Abortion = guaranteed death of human baby."This is a failed attempt to prove that woman don't suffer agony through pregnancy and labor. Pro is also trying to play on emotions instead of defending his argument.Therefore homicide is still irrelevant because it is still self defense against bodily harm.-A mother still has the potential to be a slave.-The fetus is possibly an unwanted parasite.-The woman has more right to her body than the fetus.-A governent which forces a mother to carry for full term is potentially liable for legal restitution for slavery.-Nature is manipulated by humans for personal desires-The American constitution trumps the UN cnstitution in America.Therefore abortion is not against human rights. Making abortion illegal however, would be.