Resolved: Social abortions ought not be legal in the US.

1. Pro contends that justice is obtained solely by applying the criteria of "human worth." Pro further contends that sole measure of whether an act respects human worth is whether or not an act is "dehumanizing." Pro's logic is then that removing other human rights from a woman is not dehumanizing, but rather that only abortion is dehumanizing to the fertilized egg, and that no factor may be considered. The founding father considered rights self-evident, and hence derived from human nature or as Pro would phrase it, "human worth." Pro maintained that human rights are only those established in law, and therefore the new abstract right against "dehumanization" he claims to have derived from human worth takes precedence. This question has long been resolved in favor of human rights being the standard for "human worth" and not the new standard which Pro has proposed. 2. If the extremely narrow definition of human worth proposed by Pro is accepted, it is then the job of Pro to establish that the human worth of a fertilized egg is greater than the human worth of an adult woman. The necessary first step is to establish that a fertilized egg is a human being. "Human being" is, as a phrase, defined in the dictionary as characterized by having a backbone and walking upright. Thus according to the dictionary, the fertilized egg is not a human being and the resolution based upon that assumption fails. Pro proposes to remedy this definition, deemed unsatisfactory, by constructing his own. His definition of human is fine. However, the dictionary offers two definitions of being, (a) existence, in the sense of "being there." and (b) an independent creature, in the sense of "a being from another planet." Definition (b) is the sense that used in the phrase "human being." However, if Pro did the construction correctly, he would again lose, because a fertilized egg is not independent. Pro's incorrect construction of the definition of "human being" should be rejected in favor of what the dictionary gives as the definition. the proposition then fails. 3. In his resolution, Pro provided an exception for rape. I made no argument that the exception was incorrect or improper and in no way argued against it. Indeed, the exception is perfectly logical and I rely upon his logic. The logic behind crafting an exception is that the harm of dehumanization to the woman is greater than the harm of dehumanization done to the fertilized egg. Thus Pro implicitly acknowledged tat by his own standards, the proposition maintaining that the egg suffers greater harm, fails. Pro never provided a counter-argument, maintaining that pointing out his logic is out-of-bounds. 4. How has society judged the question, "Is a fertilized egg a human being?" Buy observing the traditions of society we know that society universal treats the death of a fertilized egg in a way much inferior to the death of a human being. If the fertilized egg is nonetheless maintained to be a human being, then society clearly affords it a much inferior worth than that of human that have been born. Pro's rebuttal was that natural death is different, but in fact tradition does not treat natural deaths differently. 5. Pro's standard of "human worth" was applied to the woman in comparison to the fertilized egg by arguing that the woman's right to govern her body could be derive from human nature in the manner that Pro claimed to derive a right against dehumanization. Pro's only rebuttal was to claim that applying his standards in any way other than that which he espoused is extra-topical. 6. I argued that there was greater injustice in making abortion illegal than in making it legal. Pro failed to provide any counter-argument, not even a symbolic one. Therefore, the argument stands and under the standard of justice mutually agreed upon, the resolution fails. 7. Having argued that a fertilized egg was a not a human being, and that even if deemed a human being was judged by society to are vastly inferior worth, I argued that therefore the rights of the woman and of society should prevail. Pro again declined to counter the point directly, claiming that no right, and implicitly, no human worth had been established for either the woman or society. Had Pro granted any human worth, be would be obliged to argue the relative worth. Pro argued that my argument implied that it would be acceptable to kill children. His argument assumes that I had attributed equal worth to children and fertilized eggs. I had stated explicitly that no one would equate the two. I argued throughout the debate that such was not the case. Per Argument 3, pointing out that Pro had allowed an exemption for rape, Pro implicitly acknowledged that the logic behind my argument was correct. 8. Pro alleges that the legalization of abortion does harm to society. Abortion has been legalized for roughly 50 years, so I asked Pro to point out a harm to society that had resulted and to trace that harm to the legalization of abortion. Pro rebutted that he was arguing "intrinsic moral downfall." Apparently "intrinsic moral downfall" is that society is not doing as Pro wishes, because he cannot cite a single negative consequence that is a product of the intrinsic moral downfall that he claims. ------------------------ Pro used an incorrect definition of "human being" and failed to rebut the numerous arguments that even if a fertilized egg were considered a human being that the egg's worth was inferior to humans who had been born. Most damaging was Pro's inclusion of a rape exemption, by which makes it abundantly clear that even he acknowledges the substantial inferiority of the egg. Pro claims that any application of his standard of human worth other than his is out-of-bounds. To my knowledge, there is no rule in LD that prohibits applying Pro's standard to Pro's arguments, which what I did. The implications are simply broader than Pro suspected. Pro has lost on all counts.