Abortion should be illegal in the United States except when both mother and child might die.

Me and con discussed the rules for the last round. "We can do rebuttals, so long as we don't make new points in them." This means I may only make Rebuttals, and not making additional Contentions and Arguments. As for not being able to refute dropped cases, that wasn't in the argreement. I may refute any case made. I'll only refute cases brought out in R4 (including the Mitochrondria argument.)I gave two straight definitions from three dictionaries. One was the definition, the other was the legal definition. I only used those two usages, same meaning, difference only in who recognizes it (the dictionary, or the government.) My definitions were set a head of time, and Con rudely disregarded them, instead changing the requirement of personhood to meet his needs. Rebuttal I: The Rape Exception.The UDHR has vast legal influence in the US. While the UN can not punish a nation for ignoring the document, to ignore it is still a human rights violation. That's where the question comes in. Should the US do it if it is a humans right violation: short answer, no.Going against the basic rights in the UDHR is still a human rights violation, even if the UN can't punish you (although they have punished places before.) The US ratified the UDHR, meaning the US recognizes those rights, and that breaking them is still a human rights violation.Rape is completely irrelevant to whether or not abortion is right. It's completely irrelevant to the case all together. How the fetus is conceived isn't important. Only an attempt to make others feel for Con's case. Being unhappy with how someone was born is not an excuse to end their life. Only two people are involved in rape... The rapist and the victim. The fetus is absolutely not involved in the scenario.Thompson's analogy is a faulty analogy. The baby is not the violinist. The rapist is. The baby didn't violate the woman. She may seek to separate herself for the baby after birth, but not kill it before birth. The analogy is blaming the wrong person, and is a terrible rendering of the situation that gravely misinterprets it beyond recognition. Sub-point A: Con claims my case is inhumane. Con is again misrepresenting my entire case. Forcing someone to save a life is wrong, but forcing someone to not kill a person isn't. If someone is being killed, you don't have to save them, but when you are the one killing them (or having them killed), it changes.Sub-point B: The fetus is a body all it's own. The fetus will have its own bodily integrity separate of the mothers. To ignore the fetus' right would be to ignore many of his rights. Con has failed to prove that ignoring the fetus's right to bodily integrity would be less of a violation. Ignoring the mother's right would violate her Bodily Integrity, while ignoring the fetus' would violate his Bodily Integrity, and Right to Life. Violating the fetus' would be a much more grave violation.Clashing rights are always a sensitive topic, but in this case, the Fetus loses out most if ignored.Rebuttal II: Saving the Mother's lifeKey-point... Many things are illegal because the misuse of them would be more grave than the benefits if legal.“Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” – Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood.While not every live can be saved without Abortion, the number that actually require abortion without any other option is microscopic. This is a case of having a bad option (abortion) and a good option (proper medical attention) and picking the bad option. The law specifically states that if there is a way preserve life without killing, it must be taken. Killing in self defense must only be the last resort. Con might bring up that medical attention costs more money, but following the law is never cheaper. Just because something costs less doesn't mean it should be legal.So why then shouldn't abortion be legal for the mothers who truly do require it to live but the child's doesn't? Legalizing it would cause more misuse than benefits. The number of people saved wouldn't increase, while the number of death from misuse of the broad exception gravely outnumbers it. Women who didn't actually need abortion would still wrongly get them because of the broad definition of "self-defense." A similar case of this happening is the vast misuse of legalized Marijuana.The biggest reason why making Mother only abortions legal will lead to more causalities is this. Legal or illegal, one person dies each case. But wen illegal, only those few die. If legal, the same number dies, plus a death count from misused cases. Making cases where mother and child is at risk illegal leaves two causalities each case. Since the requirements are that both are dying, it'll be harder to wrongly claim one. Making those abortions legal will actually save somebody.The difference is the ratio of lives saved compared to the ratio of lives wrongfully lost in the misuse of the legalization. This is always taken into consideration when legalizing something or keeping something legal. When something wrong is done while illegal, it's the person's fault, but when done while legal, it's on the Governments shoulders.Rebuttal III: Abortion in GeneralSub-point A: Con has continuously spent his time making false analogies. A fingernail isn't a human because its DNA isn't unique from its host. The host is human, the fingernail is only an add on. A mitochondria is also not comparable, as the mitochondria is grown as a part of the plant cell, and is not it's own cell. It is also only an addition. Although there are exceptions, like the Virus, con never begin to prove the fetus is one. A fetus actually starts as a cell. A mitochondria isn't a cell, or any form of organism, and is only an addition. The fetus is fully unique and matches all the characteristics of a unicellular organism from conception. Con's comparisons are not accurate in the least.I said that a human corpse is still human, which is why it has bodily integrity even through it isn't alive anymore. My full quote can be found in R3, Rebuttal III."C: Even a corpse is human (i.e. Human Corpse.) Ones humanity stays after death. This is why they cannot use your body parts without your permission after you die. For the sake of debate, I've fully explained how a fetus is alive." Pro in R3I do not understand how Con came to this conclusion that I said a corpse is not a human. Con lied about my own argument, and claims I made an argument I never claimed. I said quite the opposite of that, and my argument do not contradict. Con's do, however."C. Finally, a human implies that someone possess the full-range of capacities that make them alive. A corpse is not a human, it was a human." -Con in R2.Con made the claim that a corpse is no longer human, and now he is claiming they are. He has contradicted his own argument, lied about mine, and made a claim that further proves my actual argument. Sub-point B: While a few nations, like Canada and the UK, are similar to the US, most nations aren't. You can't compare the US to most the world. Nations in Asia, East Europe, and Africa fit con's reference, but are nothing like the US. Most, if not all, nations that have large rates of illegal abortions also have, a) poor police efficiency, b) much higher pregnancy rate than the US. Some nations with high illegal abortion rates also have twice the pregnancy rate, and c) more poverty facing women.Rebuttal IV: Cross-ApplicationMy logic abides to the accepted form of Human Rights. While the UN can not enforce the UDHR, the US has signed it, acknowledging those as human rights. To violate them is to violate the US-accepted Human Rights. Con has missed the very reason I brought up the UDHR. It's an accepted list of rights that each nation, specifically the US, follow. Just because it can't be enforced deosn't mean you aren't violating human rights by ignoring a right explained in it. You very much are.My personhood rationale was the actual part of the court decision on Roe v Wade. The court specifically claimed that their decision only stands if the fetus is not a person. The fetus is human, making it a person. That is the legal definition of person: A human being (4). Being alive isn't even required, much like how a corpse's body can not be violated even though it isn't alive. This wasn't my rationale, but the official Federal Court decision.My "rationale" that a fetus is a person was based solely on hard science and biology.4) http://tinyurl.com...Conclusion:Most of con's arguments are fallacies and misrepresentation of my arguments. Con ignored my offical definitions of Person in order to replace it with his own. Con lied about my argument regarding the corpse, and contradicted his own argument. Con made false analogies and comparisons.The legal definition of Person is human. Nothing more.A) A fetus has unique human DNA.B) A fetus is human.C) A fetus is a personSince a fetus is human, it is guaranteed right to life by the 14th Amendment, as is the offical decision of the court. Abortion is then the killing of a human, makig it homicide, which is only legal as a last resort self-defense. However, the benefits of legalizing Abortion in cases where only the mother is at risk is gravely outmatch by negative use. Since legal or illegal, the same number of people are saved, while more would die in misuse of the broad legalization. While the number saved in the more numerious cases where both are at risk would outmatch the losses of life from misuses (since it'll be harder to wrongly get one with a less broad legalization.)Unless both mother and child are at risk, Abortion should be illegal. Keeping it legal for cases where only the mother dies will have a larger causalty rate then if made illegal. Any other exemptions does not legally justify the violation of the unborn's rights.