Resolved: Legalized Abortion is the Greatest Crime against Humanity in the History of Mankind

On to the rebuttal. A child in the womb is NOT part of his or her mother’s body. 1. Check the DNA. DNA means nothing in determining what is or what is not part of someone’s body. Thus, by that same logic, if someone was to receive a heart transplant, that heart would not be part of that person’s body because the heart has different DNA? That’s ridiculous! 2. Understand that the child’s body and system has to release hormones and such to trick the mother’s body so that she doesn’t reject the child. This is objective proof that they are not part of the same body Once again, just because the baby has to trick the mother doesn’t mean a thing. By your same logic, if someone to have a heart transplant, then the heart is NOT part of the person’s body? Because of course, medications are needed to trick the body into accepting the organ [1]? The mother and child are just as separated by the Placental Barrier as they are connected by it. But the barrier exists for the sole purpose of keeping the two bodies and systems apart from one another. But do you think that a baby could thus survive outside of the mother until birth? Of course not, that is the whole reason why the baby is part of the mother. The baby is completely dependent on the mother and is not a separate living organism and is not even an organism. It is very clear that the baby IS part of the mother and thus the mother should be able to choose what happens to the baby as it is part of her. So, I would like to point it out to Con that the U. S. code already defines “children in the womb” I would like to point out that this is R4, and thus I believe it is inappropriate to define a new term that is essentially arguing for PRO, even though this definition is incorrect, regardless of which this definition doesn’t even apply to this debate. The definition in no way states that the child is a separate entity from the mother, it merely states that the child is a homo sapiens. Of course, the child is part of the mother and thus is synonymous with the mother which of course is a homo sapiens. This is not dehumanization as the child is not an organism, or human, merely part of the mother and thus this quote does nothing for PRO. How Con can equate the natural death of a child of any gestational age with the deliberate killing of a prenatal child by a paid abortionist is beyond Pros ability to comprehend. Every time a woman releases eggs, and those eggs are not fertilized, she has essentially killed a human being. This process may be natural, but it is still murder because a woman can technically have a child every nine months because she continues to release eggs until the age of around 50. It is common sense that almost 100% of women do not have a child every nine months and thus 100% of women are choosing to kill millions of children by denying them of life. Is this a natural death? No, this is a denial of life, and thus it is murder. Should we make it a crime for women not to bear a child every nine months? Does Con not appreciate the fact that we already have laws which make the unjust killing of a child in the womb punishable as a murder? That is what we are essentially debating on whether or not these laws should stand. The fact that we have laws against this cannot be used as an argument. I remind Con of the fact that even Planned Parenthood (no friend to the anti-abortion cause) acknowledges the fact that the unborn are organism. I remind PRO of the fact that the last time I checked, Planned Parenthood was not a scientific authority in the field of biology. I would also like to remind PRO that the definition of organism came directly from a online BIOLOGY dictionary, a much more reputable source for a definition than Planned Parenthood in the fields of science. The definition is very clear and can be confirmed by various sites. [2][3][4] Clearly, an organism MUST be able to live independently, something a child in the womb cannot. Thus, a child in the womb is not an organism. “A human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stage of development. ” This is an argument from authority (I have recently learned about these). What essentially Pro has done is he has said: “Well, Robert P. George said this and Mr. George is an authority on the topic, thus what he said is correct. ” This is clearly false, just because Mr. George has said this doesn’t mean a thing. In a debate, an argument cannot be constructed around what somebody has once said, logic is required and I have logically shown that a human embryo is not an organism. To Con’s credit, Con did answer yes, that he “would consider it to be a crime against humanity,” to deny the status of personhood to a human being or to a group of human beings” Yes I would consider denying personhood to a grown men and women a crime against humanity, but I would NOT consider it a crime even if personhood starts at conception (which it doesn’t). I would consider it a crime once that embryo becomes a conscious, independent human being. I ask my opponent to specify what he would consider to be a Greater “Crime Against Humanity” than the murders of 1.28 BILLION children killed by legalized abortion since 1980. Once again, it is not 1.28 billion children. You have failed to show that the child is not part of the mother as I have refuted the arguments, thus in reality, nothing has been murdered, thus abortion is not a crime against humanity. Through a lack of characters, I unfortunately must end my arguments here. I look forward to a great final round! SOURCES: . http://www.healthlinkbc.ca... . http://science.yourdictionary.com... . http://oxforddictionaries.com... . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...