Allowing Abortion in every U.S. State

===> I N T R O D U C T I O N <=== "I would like to point out that my opponent did not state any sources. " The debate is philosophical in nature. My opening argument stated nothing that needed citing. Furthermore I would like to note that my opponent's definition of humanity does not in any way define humanity nor does it explain his position on it related to this debate. ===> D E F I N I T I O N S -- A N D -- P R O B L E M S <=== For clarity I pose the following definition: Fetus - an unborn human My opponent has entered 3 very broad terms for his criterion but has not defined them nor given a guideline for determining what they are and are not. Therefore I ask my opponent to define "emotion" "pain" and "reasoning" and to prevent a very clear guideline for determining pain, emotion and reasoning in any human being. ===> C R I T E R I O N -- F O R -- H U M A N I T Y <== My opponent has made the argument that the ability to make decisions for oneself, have emotions, and feel pain are the prime criterion for humanity. However my opponent has been exceptionally vague on how to weight these 3 criterion. Is one greater than the others? Does one of the criterion constitute humanity? two of the criterion? All three? Are they all weighted equally? All are pertinent questions. As the person who created the resolution and being pro, my opponent has the burden of proof and must prove that a fetus does not have the ability to reason, cannot feel pain, or has no emotion. ===> A R G U M E N T -- A G A I N S T -- P R E M I S E -- O F -- C R I T E R I O N <== My opponent is attempting to make the case that the ability to decide things for yourself, feel pain, and have emotions constitute humanity. These are all separate criterion which haven't been thoroughly explained. However, as the debate has been changed to "Fetus's are not human" and human is the equation of these criterion, then is my opponent suggesting that all three of these qualities occur at the moment of birth? If so what scientific support does my opponent have to support this rationale? In order to win this debate my opponent must prove that the ability to reason, feel pain, and have emotions, occur at the moment of birth. If this is not so and the criterion occurs after birth then my opponent must admit that newborns are not human and do not deserve life and should legally and philosophically be allowed to be killed by anyone without anything but destruction of property as a violation. If this criterion occurs before birth then my opponent must concede this debate as a fetus is then at some point a human. ===> A R G U M E N T -- A G A I N S T -- C R I T E R I O N -- O F -- P A I N <=== My opponent's source that he uses to prove his contention is a 1995 report that confirms all the necessary body parts to feel pain at 26 weeks, however it argues that since fetuses observe nothing in the womb they don't have any concious memories and thus can't consciously experience pain. This argument cites information from source that is 25 years old and makes its argument from a popular fallacy. The argument from ignorance. The argument is that because there is no proof of conscious observation that it doesn't exist thus pain doesn't exist. "The 2009 study found that by 30 weeks of age, a fetus could "remember" a sound for 10 minutes. By the 34th week a fetus may be able to "remember" the sound for four weeks. " SOURCE: . http://abcnews.go.com... As by my opponent's own source which says that fetus's have all the parts necessary for experiencing pain and from my source which shows a long-term and short term conscious memory we can easily conclude that by the 30th week the fetus can experience pain. Contention negated. ===> A R G U M E N T -- A G A I N S T -- C R I T E R I O N -- O F -- E M O T I O N <=== "Medical research has proven that the uterine environment is not just subject to physical trauma but to emotional trauma as well. How can this be? Well when you really think about it makes a great deal of sense. Our emotions, whether happy, sad, or stressful have effects on our body, releasing hormones from time to time. These hormones are transmitted from the mother to the fetus via of the placenta. So when a mother feels excited her unborn child feels the effects of being excited, and when she feels blue her unborn child feels those effects also" SOURCE: . http://www.suite101.com... As is clear emotions are passed onto the fetus. Thus fetus's experience emotions. Furthermore there is clear evidence that a fetus cries in the womb. Source: . http://dsc.discovery.com... ===> A R G U M E N T -- A G A I N S T -- C R I T E R I O N -- O F -- R E A S O N I N G <=== While I do not understand the extent of reasoning that is required to prove the criterion my opponent has presented me, I can say that a fetus being able to recognize his/her mother's voice is clear evidence of cognition. "New research findings on the ability of a fetus to recognize its mother's voice and even distinguish it from other female voices confirms what scientists have speculated about for more than 20 years - that experiences in the womb help shape newborn preferences and behaviour. Dr. Barbara Kisilevsky, a Queen's University professor of nursing along with a team of psychologists at Queen's and obstetricians in Hangzhou, China, found that fetuses are capable of learning in the womb and can remember and recognize their mother's voice before they are even born. Their research findings are published in the current issue of the international journal Psychological Science. " SOURCE: . http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com... ===> C O N C L U S I O N <=== My opponent's definition hardly defines humanity, fails to prove that all three criterion he constitutes as proof of humanity occurs exactly at the time of birth, and has given no proof or solid logical reasoning that support his affirmation. I have clearly refuted all three criterion through my own arguments despite being given no logical evidence to refute from my opponent. As it thus stands my opponent's affirmation that a fetus is not a human has been refuted.