Resolved: Abortion ought to be legal.

1. "Never asked you to answer anything" That isn't really my gripe. My problem is that I stated in my first speech that there are thousands of positions within the pro-life movement so I will only be addressing common arguments within it. This gave you the ability to choose whatever you deemed as my weakest arguments as your points of view and ignore the rest. This is exactly what you've done. Up until now you have only argued morality which is just one, maybe two, of my arguments in my first round. 2. Econ He could've stated this in his last speech. This leads me to believe he was just negligent and wanted to push his rhetoric, I can substantiate this claim with his extreme appeal to emotions and his complete disregard to the vast majority of my arguments, which I predicted to be the case. On to the argument itself. He is doing more appeal to emotion. Equating my argument with the literal killing of 10% of the human population. Not only has he completely disregarded my morality arguments that cross apply to this argument, he has just reinforced my belief that he has no idea what my point of view is. Let me reiterate for about the 8th time: a. A human fetus is not a human being. (It is HUMAN but that is completely different, we don't treat tumors as humans) b. Even if it were, the human rights granted to a human being does not state they have the right to use anyone's body without consent. This means, whether or not we consider a fetus to be a human being, a mother can retract her consent during pregnancy. Works similar to sexual intercourse. c. Therefore, whether or not I convince you as a voter that a fetus is a human being, I have won the morality argument. So no, con, I am not advocating for killing for money. Stop with the nonsensical comparisons of my arguments to things that are quite obviously morally wrong. Address my arguments or forfeit. 3. Somatic Rights Con has lost all sense of logic in this argument. He argues that the mother doesn't have the right to abort because "Human rights do not give someone the right to another person's body." What? This just doesn't make sense. The mother isn't using the fetus' body to survive and develop, it's vice versa. Human rights show us that this isn't allowed without consent. If a mother withdraw's consent, then abortion is justified to keep the mother's rights intact. As John Stuart Mill expresses, the authority, which depends on context, has no right to forcefully act upon one's rights unless that right is infringing upon another. This is called the harms principle. The mother, the authority in the harms principle, is infringing on the fetus' right to live, if we assume a fetus is a human being, because that is only kept by the mother sustaining the fetus. The fetus has violated the mother's rights, even if unintentionally it still applies (look at legal precedent), first to even warrant a response by the mother, this is why she has the right to abort. Furthermore, writing this argument is odd because the fetus has done nothing to warrant a response, even though as I stated it is an irrelevant variable in the harms principle, which just reinforces my view of the fetus not being a human being. This is because the fetus had no choice in the matter, in the most literal way, because it does not have sentience to choose. 4. The beginning of life is subjective This isn't blatantly false. There is nothing in science, DNA or RNA or otherwise, that proclaims, "Hey scientists this is when life begins." This is because we as humans dictate the definition. Let's go through the quotes Con brings up to substantiate this claim: "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed[.]" I agree, a human organism has formed, this is just logical. However, a human BEING, with the ability to reason and act on their own, has not. This quote shows nothing for con's argument. "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." Same as the last one, even used extremely similar wording. Nothing in this substantiates Con's claim. "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." I thought this one would have a refutable point, but it doesn't. This quote, as stated in the quote itself, is stating from the context of ontogeny. Now ontogeny is a descriptive word for ontongenesis which I will define: the development of an individual organism or anatomical or behavioral feature from the earliest stage to maturity. This, again, is saying the same thing as the past two. This is because it is using the word life and lives as the start of their biological being. All this is saying is that higher animals start their biological life as an organism from a zygote. This is not something I am refuting. This does not substantiate con's claim. "If we say that a dog's life begins at fertilization, a cat's life begins at fertilization, then why are humans any different?" Have not heard of anyone saying this nor it being a huge topic, but that is irrelevant. This is an appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy, that states that just because something is popular in belief or action doesn't mean it's the best thing. Yes scientific fact states that new life of an ORGANISM begins at fertilization. This doesn't equate to a human being. Cancer cells, parasites, diseases, are all organisms within the human body and we do not treat them as human beings, because they aren't human beings. Even if they were, they'd need sentience to be able to classify as a human being. 5. Fetus' are indeed human but not a human BEING. I never stated they weren't human life in the context of being a living organism. The differences between a fetus and a 15 year old is indeed: a, Age b. Location (irrelevant) c. Level of independency AND d. Sentience Not only does this show that con is completely disregarding my entire argument of sentience, it doesn't have a real point. Slavery wasn't justified because of property, it was due to mostly economic factors that then brought social change for the worse, but that is nether here nor there. Con is appealing to emotion by equating my arguments to the justification of slavery, yet again. I had never stated that a fetus isn't a human being on the grounds of location. I only stated IF we classify it as a HUMAN BEING, therefore showing I never stated that a fetus wasn't a human being on those grounds, it still has no human right to the body of the mother. This is fact. Con goes on about the flawed location argument, even though I never made it. Con then makes the argument that the fetus is indeed dependent on the mother and that doesn't change. Yes it does. Scientifically, a mother cannot transfer a child to another, at least not yet, but a child can receive food from another source after birth. I have offered a definition to sentience in context to our argument. it is the ability to experience, feel, and perceive things SUBJECTIVELY. Most coma patients have sentience and those that don't have the means of accessing sentience, but a brain condition prevents it. Completely different. Coma patient has the means but not the ability, fetus has neither. 7. Tumor Fetus containing different DNA is irrelevant to my human rights argument. "Patient down the hall" is an illogical comparison. Patient whose blood I'm living off of is a logical comparison. And they do have that right to stop giving blood. 8. Give me an objective reason why a fetus should be considered a human being that trumps mine. 9. I've shown the lack of logic in his arguments. Address ALL of my arguments!!!!