The USFG should ban abortion

Con uses his/her Round 2 arguments to refute my case in Round 2. However, rebuttals are not until Round 3 which states: “Pro rebuts Con’s case and vice versa” I will proceed by refuting the arguments Danielle made in Round 2, but not his/her rebuttals which I will address in Round 4. Rebuttals:1. However, the unborn child has equal right to bodily autonomy. As stated in the resolution, if the mother’s life is truly in danger, she should be able to access the proper medical procedure. The main thing wrong with this argument is that Con doesn’t prove that the human rights to life and bodily autonomy require the precedence of consciousness. 2. This argument is flawed because there is a huge distinction between denying treatment and actively killing someone. If you see someone dying and you do not help and as a result they die, the law doesn’t hold you accountable. Meanwhile, if you intentionally shoot a man meaning to kill him or if you order or pay an assassin to do the killing the person for you, then you will be charged with either murder or conspiracy of murder. This argument is also hypocritical as you are arguing for women to have the choice to govern what happens to the unborn child’s body without their consent. Just because zygotes aren’t able to give consent doesn’t mean their bodily rights should be invaded much like how you can’t have sex with an drunk woman who is unable to give consent in US law. 3. Despite what my opponent claims, “back-alley abortions” aren’t a serious problem. Before the Roe vs. Wade case, there were less than 40 recorded deaths from illegal abortions [1]. In fact, before the Supreme Court case, more than 90% of the “illegal” abortions were done by medical professionals with high standing in their fields [2]. If abortion were to become illegal, “back-alley” abortions won’t be much of a problem. Even if abortion laws do not prevent these “back-alley” abortions, there are still fundamental flaws in this argument. Despite the fact that slavery has been banned in over 167 countries [3] we have the “back-alley” version of slavery known as human trafficking. Today, nearly 21 million people are bought and sold worldwide into commercial sexual servitude, forced labor and bonded labor. Within the United States, the National Human Trafficking Resource Center hotline, operated by Polaris, has received reports of 14,588 sex trafficking cases inside the United States [4]. By Con’s logic, we should reinstate slavery as a legal institution which no pro-choice advocate I know advocates for. 4. Although, the female’s right to bodily autonomy was violated in cases of rape and incest, in what way does this justify violating the rights of the unborn to life and bodily autonomy. The unborn itself is not responsible for what happened to the victim. How does infringing another’s rights atone for what the rapist did. 5. This argument is irrelevant to the debate as it is after fertilization when a sperm and an egg become an embryo which you accept is a human being. 6. Again, what you argue is irrelevant to this debate. Just because many people do not follow what you believe to be a consistent pro-life ideology, that does not mean they reflect badly on the ideology itself. Con fails to make a connection why the actions of people should be related to how the pro-life ideology should be judged. 7. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Con states that violating a person’s bodily autonomy has no legal or moral basis yet advocates that the bodily rights of the unborn can be violated if it yields cures to various diseases. However, killing human zygotes isn’t the only way to obtain embryonic stem cells. Japanese scientists were able to reprogram human skin cells to function like embryonic stem cells using gene therapy [5]. With this scientific discovery, stem cell research can commence without the loss of human life. 8. Adoption in the US is completely viable. In adoption, the demand far outweighs the supply of adoptable children. In fact, for every baby placed for adoption, there are 12 to 15 potential adopters who want to adopt that specific child [6]. Con’s argument for what goes on in developing countries are irrelevant to this debate because the resolution relates to the United States. 9. Con disputes the unborn’s right to life and bodily autonomy. He/she does this by pointing to the fact that animals and plants are legally killed. Con however ignores the wording and importance of the documents that define the rights of all humans. The 14th Amendment states: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” The 14th Amendment doesn’t grant these rights to animals and plants but persons. The United Nations which the United States agreed to be a part of while also agreeing to uphold the rights that the UN defines, only extends such rights to humans. That is why it is called the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, not the United Nations Declaration of Anything Alive Rights. Whether or not the ideology is grounded in arbitrary speciesism is irrelevant as the United States government decided to be bound by the 14th Amendment and the UNDHR. We the people agreed to uphold these rights for humans only. Unless the UN extends human rights to non-human things or the United States ratifies a Constitutional Amendment to give plants and animals rights, Con’s argument here is proven false. Sources: [1] . http://www.cdc.gov... [2] Mary Calderone, “Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem,” American Journal of Health 50 (July I960): 949. [3] . http://www.huffingtonpost.ca... [4] . http://polarisproject.org... [5] . http://genetics.thetech.org... [6] . http://www.nytimes.com...