The USFG should ban abortion

He asks that I not make any arguments, so I will simply respond to his contention and conclude. Re: Human RightsPro writes, "The best we can do is look at how the text stands today. " A few sentences later, he criticizes the law's decision for validating abortion through Roe v. Wade. He goes on to explain why the SCOTUS decision is flawed, directly after telling us that we must accept the laws/document as written. As it stands, the Constitution does not protect the unborn, but rather persons BORN in the United States of America; you must be born to obtain citizenship [1]. Neither the laws nor the documents call for fetuses to have the right to life. The only qualifier for U. S. citizenship rights is, in fact, being born in the U. S. Pro says, "The Declaration of Independence declares that the right to life is inalienable," and contests this extends to all persons. He also says the U. S. has accepted the UNDHR's 6th article: everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. However one could use the law to argue that legalized abortion is a woman's right. Forcing a woman to undergo a life-threatening unsafe abortion threatens her right to life. "Most recently, the European Court of Human Rights, in the case Vo v. France, ruled that 'it is neither desirable, nor even possible as matters stand, to answer in the abstract the question whether the unborn child is a person for the purpose of Article 2 of the Convention…' (providing that '[e]veryone’s right to life shall be protected by law'). The court therefore refused to adopt a ruling that would have called into question the validity of laws permitting abortion in 39 member states of the Council of Europe" [2]. Women have a right to health. Safe and legal abortion protect women's health. Several UN human rights bodies have recognized the harmful impact of restrictive abortion laws on women’s health, and have consistently raised general concerns about the inaccessibility of safe abortion services [3]. Restricting abortion denies women access to a procedure that may be necessary for their health. Only women must live with the physical consequences of unwanted pregnancy. Some women suffer maternity-related injuries, such as hemorrhage or obstructed labor. Forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term causes physical and mental suffering [4]. International law recognizes that women have a right to be free from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment including mental suffering. As a result of restrictive abortion laws, many women experiencing complications of pregnancy and needing therapeutic abortion are forced to suffer from painful, frightening and life threatening conditions. The bottom line is this: my opponent tries to use the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in his favor, but the UNDHR overwhelmingly favors pro-choice legislation. In a newly released report from United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the conclusion is clear - reproductive rights are crucial to achieving gender equality worldwide. To uphold the rights of women and achieve gender equality worldwide, Ban states U. N. members must "realize women’s reproductive health and rights" [5]. Ergo Pro's standard can be used against him. Finally on this point, Pro says that "Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy as it is a basic biological fact. " I have explicitly negated this. I repeat: If I consent to sex, it's not consent to aggressive sex or all sexual acts. If I consent to sex and contract an STD, it would be ridiculous to suggest I must be forced to live with this STD forever (or for a certain period of time) against my will. Instead I should be able to treat it however I would like, because it's my body and therefore my choice. If the STD had achieved a level of sentience, that would be different. But until then it would just be an unintended consequence of my actions. Just because we accept the risk doesn't mean we have to live with the risk. ==Throughout this debate, my opponent has not denied that pregnant women have rights. Instead he's argued that fetuses also have rights. 1. I have explained why that is morally not the case (lack of sentience). 2. I have explained why legally that is not the case, domestically or internationally (U. N. )3. I have explained that even if we accept a fetus has rights, they don't trump the mother's rights.3A. The mother has the right to privacy and bodily autonomy; if fetuses can live outside of her body on their own, fine. If not, they do not have the right to put her body in jeopardy and use someone else's body. 3B. We don't force people to use their bodies to sustain other people's life, even if it is their "fault" the other person needs help. And Pro hasn't proven that fetuses undoubtedly qualify as people (only humans). == I'm honestly not sure if based on the debate structure, I am allowed to re-cap my arguments. Therefore I would like to ask the audience to please refer back to Round 2 in particular. That's where I made 9 points in my favor on why abortion ought to remain legal. Please extend those points. [1] . https://www.uscis.gov...[2] . https://www.law.georgetown.edu...[3] See, e. g. , Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Mali, para 14. , U. N. Doc. CCPR/CO/77/MLI (2003); Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Poland, para. 11, U. N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.110 (1999); CAT Committee, Concluding Observations: Chile, para. 7(m), U. N. Doc. CAT/ CR/32/5 (2004). [4] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20: Replaces general comment 7 concerning prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment (Art. 7), (44th Sess. , 1992), ch. II, para. 5 at 200, U. N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. I) (2008). [5] . http://www.bustle.com...