Abortion is wrong

Con starts out the round with a list of abortive methods, designed to show the barbarism which is abortion. The fetus, for the record, is sliced, diced, sucked into a tube, dismembered, and poisoned. Con's research was negligent, however, because he is being rhetorical and wanted you all to believe that these are the only practiced methods. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I think that, under further examination of the remaining techniques, the deception of his methods will be uncovered. 6) Coat hanger prodding- In this method, the weary mother, delirious from the fact that her pregnancy is causing her strife and her government won't allow an abortion, jams a metal coat hanger up into her... Whatever you call that stuff, I'm terrible with female anatomy. The fetus is impaled repeatedly until it breaks into little pieces. I'm not sure what happens next because if you couldn't already tell biology isn't my thing. After the baby falls out in pieces, the mother commonly suffers internal bleeding and infection, which can, a significant portion of the time, result in death since the infection is already well inside her torso. 7) Drugs- The mother takes back-alley drugs which are promised to kill her unwanted baby. If they don't wipe out her reproductive system entirely, they probably aren't going to do her or her fetus much good. The sky is the limit on how much harm they will both suffer. If there are other methods, I need not go any further. Con's problem is this: like many pro-lifers, they just don't get it. Abortion law isn't about whether or not to get an abortion. I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I'm out shopping for abortions, or that I would ever even consider getting them myself. It is about human rights. Law, in general, isn't about what's best. It's about what is the least worst. It's just like if my dog digs a hole in my backyard and someone steps in it and sues me. It's not my fault, I didn't dig it! The law seems unfair, but it must be that way because of the least worst situation: I could start digging hidden holes to hurt people and be legally exempt because "my dog did it". In the same sense, the least worst situation is that women go out and get back-yard abortions, after being denied service. Just like the illegal drug market thrives, the illegal abortion market would be created and thrive. Most likely it would just be some abortion drugs that are sold through the already-existent illegal drug infrastructure. "If you can logically prove to me that human life is not started at conception, you win." Ah yes, the newbie cardinal error: thinking that they can willfully contain the debate within their pre-conceived parameters. This is the "question of humanity" argument for fetuses. It basically comes down to this: "What makes us human beings?" Con answers the question by saying life starts at conception. Fair enough, a zygote is alive... No argument there. But sperm are alive too. Is every ejaculation filled with millions of "alive" sperm that should be protected? Where are their rights? Sure, they only have half of the DNA, but does DNA really make the individual? The real difference between sperm, zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc. and PEOPLE is that a person is more than the sum of their parts. If I asked you "what makes you a person?" What would you say? If I said "What gives your life meaning? "What gives you sentience?" "What separates you from apes?" I would hope your answer wouldn't be as poorly constructed as "eye color, finger-print, and DNA" as your round 2 argument implies. Instead of merely asking these questions, I will go to the next step and answer them as well. What makes me human is my humanity. What makes me sentient is my personality. What gives me worth/meaning is my interactions with other people, which builds my character. My intelligence separates me from apes, and eye color and fingerprint are not going to be on the list at all. My hobbies, likes and dislikes, errors and achievements, pain and pleasure... These things make me a person. An embryo is not a person, it is a clump of cells that, if nurtured, can be a person some day. It won't be able to do it by itself. If it could, perhaps a better argument could be made. But the fact is that the mother must take responsibility for the child and raise it, or else it has no future. If the mother is unwilling to do this, there is little you can do with rhetoric to change this sad part of life. As far as the Declaration of Independence is concerned, you have a long way to go before you make a legal argument for your case. I don't think the Framers had zygotes in mind when they wrote "All men are created equal..." Hell, they didn't even have women in mind! The Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the Constitution, and they haven't interpreted it that way yet, however you just may get your wish if some more Christians get on the court.