Resolved: Abortion Laws violate Human Rights Law

It was wonderful to discuss this topic with you, and I hope we can debate more topics in the future! I now move to my final rebuttals and my summary of my position and closing arguments. If human rights were intrinsic (naturally occurring, essential) then it would be pointless to write down and enforce something that should be natural[S1] [S1]On the contrary, many things that are natural are at first not completely obvious or observable. Just because we can’t or don’t recognize them as natural does not change the fact that they are intrinsic. Implicit in my opponent’s statement is the notion that Human rights are bestowed upon others by humans themselves. If human rights are bestowed by humans, they can be taken away by humans. What use is there in having Human Rights then? Why refer to them as “fundamental” or “inalienable? ” This is what makes Human Rights universal, the fact that they cannot be taken away completely, they can only be restricted. A government like China may have laws restricting freedom of speech, but that does not stop Chinese citizens from exercising their right to Freedom of Speech clandestinely. " He has completely ignored the fact that these “individuals” who draft these laws in a voting system of the UN are ones that were elected and represent the COLECTIVE OPPINION of the people they represent. To say that these individuals who make the Human Rights are completely subjective and relative is to say that any modern democratic government does not represent its people at all and that government is simply an organization that controls society at its whims with little or no regard to there fellow humans. [S1] [S1]Firstly, the representatives at the UN for each country are not elected at all. They are appointed. Secondly, a Democratic Election rarely has one candidate win 100% of the vote. Most democratic elections are won with far less percentage, especially national elections. Therefore, the elected officials do not represent the opinions and preferences of those who voted against them, only those who voted for them. Unfortunately for my opponent, by stating that Human Rights are the result of mankind’s “ingenuity,” he admits that Human Rights are subjective. Humans are different, each human thinks differently, feels differently, and not all humans believe in the same rights. Human Rights that are devised by Humans and attributed to Humans may be redefined by humans, and taken away by humans, meaning they are not inalienable nor are they fundamental. The UN document leaves no room for a societal interpretation of Human Rights when it uses words like “Inalienable. ” Now what I must admit has been a flaw in both my opponent’s and I’s arguments is that they are often situational. It is true that a sperm needs a female egg to become a zygote, but it is also true that a zygote needs to have a womb to become a human. And unlike a zygote, a human that is on life support or who has a handicapped does not rely on any circumstantial evidence that they are human. .. [S1] . [S1]If we follow my oponent’s logic, that because a zygote needs to have a womb to become human it cannot be considered human, infants need food and shelter in order to grow into a fully developed human. They lack a complete bone structure, and are still developing. Are they not human then? We treat them as human, define them as human. Slaves had no funeral, no passing of rites, no burial in some cases. Did that make them any less human? My point is that we cannot arbitrarily decide “Bam, that’s a human! ” What makes us human is not that someone else reconizes us as such, but our very nature as members of the Homo Sapien Sapien species. Modern science cannot make life. It can only take the building blocks and put them in the environment needed to grow. But we do not define the mixed species of human and mouse DNA as of the Human species. It will not grow into a human, nor will it be capable of human speech, human reason, human thought. The development of the capability to merge Human DNA with other DNA, therefore, is irrelevant. As to cloning, if we perfect it, clones would be independent of the parent human. They would be capable of their own independent thought. If they originate in a lab or a womb, does that bestow human rights? I argue no, and origination is irrelevant. A functioning individual, with multiple characteristics, including DNA is what a human is. And the belief that a person on life support is not a functioning individual is a complete misrepresentation of what being human is[S1] [S1]My opponent has just contradicted himself. A person on life support cannot function on their own, otherwise they would not be on life support. They need artificial breathing, artificial supplication of nutrients. They can only breath and digest. My opponent has unwittingly lead me to my point, and my point is that when you start to arbitrarily define a human as something capable of certain actions and not capable of others, you immediately establish what it means to be human as subjective, and not universal. You immediately run into problems with comatose individuals, those who no longer think and reason, yet may do so in the near future. To say that an embryo is not human because it is not a “functioning individual, with multiple characteristics, including DNA,” is to say that a comatose individual is not human. If you believe as such, you cannot be against the killing of comatose people on principle. Nor can you be against infanticide, or the active killing of newborns, for they too are incapable of providing for their own nutrients or livelihood. It is before this point where abortion is ethical, simply because the cells that are killed off are considered the same as skin or muscle cells[S1] . [S1]I have already established that zygotes are extremely different from skin or muscle cells. If a zygote is not human, what is it? Is it dog? Is it a cat? Is it a bacteria? Is it simply a cell? But if it is simply a cell, or a clump of cells, why is it capable of developing into a human? This is very different from skin cells. Skin cells cannot develop into a human. Nor can muscle cells. Clearly, a zygote is not simply a clump of cells. It is life. It is independent of the mother. Next, if the soul is to be considered, what evidence do you have that it is not bestowed upon the zygote immediately upon conception? What evidence do you have of a soul to beginwith? I will now summarize my position:1) That the UN Declaration of Human Rights provides for inalienable, fundamental rights, one of which is the right to life.2) That these rights exist independent of the beliefs of society, otherwise they are not fundamental or inalienable.3) That arbitrarily attempting to define a zygote as a clump of cells similar to skin cells falls far short of accurately characterizing a zygote, which is at its most basic form, human life in its earliest stage of development.4) If a zygote is a human life at the earliest stage of development, it is entitled to the inalienable, fundamental right of Life, laid out in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. To address MysticEgg's comment, the UN provides a definition, but we clearly don't adhere to it strictly. We provide rights to people who can't reason or don't have a conscience on a regular basis, based on the potential to develop those properties, or sometimes, based on the simple fact that they are of the human species. Because a zygote has that potential, it too should be afforded human rights. That is my proof. That when we afford human rights to mentally ill or comatose individuals, and deny them to zygotes and fetuses, we are hypocrites, because in terms of what these individuals are capable of, there is no difference with the exception of where they are in the development stage of human life. And the development stage of Human life should not determine whether or not we consider it worthy of Human Rights. It is Human Life in the making, by its natural process, and because it is Human Life, not a crocodile or a bird, it is worthy of Human Rights. Good luck to both of us in the voting, and I look forward to reading your Final Rebuttals and Closing arguments!