Abortion opponents should be sued

= Framework = > Definitions My opponent provides a loose definition for "propaganda" and as of this point in the debate, the term is (while not the most ideal) acceptable. I do however reserve the right to protest this definition if at any later point it becomes abusive. I will offer the following definitions for further clarity Baby: [1] "an unborn child; a human fetus" Child: [2] "a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age" Should [3] "Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions" Sued [4] "institute legal proceedings against; file a suit against" > Burden of Proof Based on the resolution, as well as my opponent's opening arguments there are four burdens in this debate, three fall onto the Pro and one falls onto the Con. Pro's burdens- + Prove all opponent's of abortion should be sued + Prove that a fetus is neither a child nor a baby + Prove that telling others that a fetus is a baby is propaganda Con's burden- + Disprove any of these burdens > Observations 1. The standard by which we determine humanity, no matter what stage of life or development a human may be at, is DNA. Whether a person is 1 day old, or 100 years old, each person has a unique strand of DNA which can be identified as human[5] = Arguments = > There is no duty to sue people of differing belief systems- In the judicial system, we have at our disposal the ability to take legal action against those who have wronged us, particularly the ability to sue another person in order to gain financial or other compensation for a wrong committed. However, when such a wrong has in fact been committed, we are still not under any obligation to sue said wrongdoer, we are however permitted to sue the wrongdoer. It is exceedingly important first and foremost that we draw a distinction between the "should" obligation, and "ability" permission. This first denotes a necessity to right a wrong, or some kind of motivation based in ethical or pragmatic reasons. That said, there exists neither an obligation not a permission to sue some-one of a differing belief system then your own. This is closed-minded and counter-intuitive to progress of any kind > Child/Baby status- Before any part of this argument comes to fruition we must ask and answer the question; what qualifies something as being human? Is it their ability to survive on their own? The the disabled, the diabetic and those on medication are not human. Is it a certain level of mental prowess? Is it a humanoid body shape? Then amputees and the malformed are not human. In the end, no proposed standard qualifies something as a human except 1; a creature possessing human DNA coming from two human parents. The commonality that unites humanity is ultimately our DNA. And the fact of the matter is that unborn fetuses possess their own unique Human DNA independent from either that of their mother or father[6]. Ability to survive outside the mother's womb is irrelevant, just a vegetable's ability to survive independent of a machine or a diabetic's ability to survive without insulin shots disqualify them from being human. > Telling people a fetus is a baby or a child is not Propaganda- My opponent claims that a baby or a child can survive outside of the womb without an umbilical cord. Yet both of the definitions I offer[1][2] don't mention anything about being able to survive outside the womb without the assistance of an umbilical cord. I don't mean to be a semantic argument, but I do mean to point out my opponent's lack of warrant. We realize that a fetus qualifies as a "baby" and that a "child" is just offspring. To make the claim that they can't be called a baby or a child despite their possessing human DNA is just as bad as denying a diabetic their status as a human because they can't survive without insulin. I am more than willing to counter and argue against an opposing standard to qualify something as a human, when and if my opponent decides to offer one, but the fact still remains as of now that we don't really have much else to go by aside from DNA. > Emotional preparation- My opponent makes a logical argument claim that women who are told that a fetus is not a baby or a child will be able to deal with having a miscarriage better, however this is not logical whatsoever. Suffering a miscarriage is a tragic situation no matter who you are, and most(if not all) experts agree that the best way to handle one is not to pretend like the woman was never pregnant, but to aknowledge the loss and allow a period of grievance[7]. = Conclusion = I look forward to my opponent's refutations, and hope this will be a good debate! If my opponent has any objection to the integrity of my argument, framework or definitions, I ask that they voice their concern so that the issue is open for debate. I will assume that my opponent find the validity of my arguments, definitions and framework acceptable if they raise no objection in the following round. I will also extend on my arguments as needed in the following rounds, and I will make more direct refutations in the following round. However as of now I see these arguments as sufficient to advocate a Con vote. Back to you Pro! = Sources = [1] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [3] Google definitions [4] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [5] . http://www.enotes.com... [6] . http://www.clinchem.org... [7] . http://www.squidoo.com...