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

Thank you for the speedy reply.----------------------------Also, since Pro offers several definitions of "Person," it may become confusing as to what it means, so I would like to present a competing, straightforward explanation of my own:I feel I should have explained better. I often used the definition you gave. The other uses were in reference to legal personhood. Although the two should be one in the same, and by law of the UNUDHR, they are.----------------------------Rebuttal I: The Rape ExceptionAs I had prior said, the UNUDHR stated no distinction may void a human's right. Rape is simply a distinction without a difference. Rape held a painful impact on the Mother, but no Abortion will chance that. Nor does rape change the very genetics or humanity of the fetus.This isn't about saving someone's life, but upholding human rights. Life is a fundamental right, and must be upheld. Appling rape to the argument is quite literally only an Ad Populum that doesn't truly change anything. Nobody is less human because of the way in which they were conceived.Con has, by no means, provided evidence that suggests rape makes a fetus less than human. Con has only listed off a distinction without a difference, pulling on emotional strings, but nothing to show that the fetus is no longer human. Since the fetus is still human, rape does not void the UDHR's protection, and the fetus is still protected, without distinction.Rebuttal Ia:"Why is that your sovereignty over your body is suddenly curtailed by the fact that someone else might die?"I hope Con see's the inhumanity of that statement. Con is acting as thought the fetus will naturally die unless you save it. That is a grave misrepresentation of what is happening. The reason it's curtailed is because it is literally you calling the hit on the fetus's life. In this case, it's your choice that the fetus needs saving from. If someone is naturally dying, you are not ordered to save them... But when they are naturally living, and you are calling for them to die, the situation changes gravely.Con is acting like the fetus must be saved, but the fetus isn't dying, hoping the mother will save it. Con is wrongfully twisting the phrasing of the scenario in his favor. Rebuttal Ib:Con explains that the UDHR grants bodily integrity. However, it's not your body you are deciding over, but a completely unique human body. The child's DNA is completely unique, and thus its body is unique and separate. He is right that the UDHR grants bodily autonomy, what he forgets is that it's granted to all humans, even to the fetus. This is a case of two equal rights conflicting, and when two rights of equal status conflict, one must be void. The right voided must be the right that causes the least harm when voided. In one corner, the mother goes through labor, and may give the child away if she doesn't want it. In the other corner, the child will lose its life. In reality, it is one important right vs two important rights (one being gravely more fundamental) If a right must be voided, it must be the Mother's. The Mother's right to Bodily Integrity is not above both the Child's right to Bodily Integrity AND Right to Life.The mother may have full right over her body, but not the fetus'. So long as the UDHR stands, the fetus's is protected. A right stops where it steps on another more valuable than it, and the Right to Life is the more valuable of the two. Even if that is up for debate, the fetus is losing two rights, as opposed to the Mother's one.Rebuttal II: Saving the Mothers lifeThere is no need to argue this. I'm surprised this got brought up. Con isn't arguing against the resolution here... If the mother's life is at risk, then logic says the fetus' life is also at risk. There is hardly such a thing as "only" the mother's life being at risk. If the pregnancy will kill the mother, it'll kill the fetus.Con's contention doesn't argue against the resolution.Rebuttal III: Abortion, in general, should be legal.Con has gravely broadened his ground here. Let's see if he can defend such a vast contention.Rebuttal IIIa: Being alive is not about whom you depend on or how much you depend on them. Surely even the Remora is alive....more so it is simply part of the mother's body because it users her body's functions.A terrible misconception. The fetus' DNA is entirely unique from the mothers. If you took a sample of DNA from a fetus, and tested it to see who it belonged to, the mother wouldn't be the one who showed up (technically, no one would, because the fetus is entirely unique from anyone). The Fetus has a body to itself, connected only through the placenta (1). The Fetus' body also performs a surprisingly large amount of its own functions (proportionate to how many it needs at that stage.) As my (rather unmentioned) Argument II shown, science is completely backing the claim that the fetus is alive.It must be understood that the law doesn't choose whose alive. That is a matter of biology, and biology says the fetus is fully alive, and DNA shows it has a unique body of its own. All of Con's arguments continue to be distinctions, which are void in the face of the UDHR. The only argument so far that wasn't a distinction was Contention III Sub-point A. The problem is that science is not on his side. Con used the argument that the fetus is dependent to attempt to dispute the whole of scientific research I have displayed, even though independence has never been a notable Characteristic of Life. I have visited many essays and pages to compile a list of these Characteristics of Life, and being independent isn't one of them. 1) http://tinyurl.com...Rebuttal IIIb:Breaking the law is risky in many ways... It's not really a playing factor in the issue of legality. How one chooses to break the law is not a determining factor in whether or not that law is right. But this is a common argument, so it's only right to discuss it.If made illegal, the rate of unsafe abortions wound rise, but not nearly enough to outbalance the scale. At the present, Abortions end slightly over 1,300,000 life's a year in the US(2). Unsafe Abortions, with a death rate of 0.002% (47,000 deaths (3) to 19,000,000 unsafe abortions (4) including third world nations) would have to rise drastically to outmatch the number of human deaths occurred while abortion is legal. It's nearly impossible to find the number of illegal abortions in the US, so I can't provide an exact number on how much Unsafe Abortions would have to increase, but if the ratio is at 0.05% in developed countries (by doing math (3)), than the number of unsafe abortions would have to increase by 1800 percent.The number would actually have to be higher, as the US's unsafe abortion ratio is much smaller than most developed nations, accounting for it not being on any UN, WHO, or Guttmacher reports because of the small number. Con must remember, as well, that illegal abortions are not always unsafe abortions. Con has to prove that the number of unsafe abortions would increase nearly enough to suggest more human life might be saved by keeping Abortion legal.2) http://www.guttmacher.org...3) http://whqlibdoc.who.int...4) http://tinyurl.com...Argument I: Without DistinctionDistinction, Noun:1. The act of distinguishing; differentiation.2. The condition or fact of being dissimilar or distinct; difference:3. A distinguishing factor, attribute, or characteristic. (5): a difference that you can see, hear, smell, feel, etc. : a noticeable difference between things or people: the separation of people or things into different groups. (6)Article II:Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status....Con must prove that the fetus is not human. Con has broadened his resolution to "Abortion, in general, should be legal." This resolution cannot be defended unless Con can void the protection of the UDHR. The only way to do this is through proving the fetus is not human. So long as the fetus is human, it's a person (as Con, himself, defined in R1) and therefore protected by Article VI, Article II, and Article III.Being conceived of rape is merely another distinction, one that affects very little of the fetus, if any. A man may not be held to the sins of his father. Abortion will not salvage a woman's happiness, legalizing it for her does her no good. Abortion has even been known to leave rape victims with a sense of guilt. The UDHR is very specific to say that no distinction, what so ever, voids these rights. Rape is implicit.5) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...6) http://www.merriam-webster.com...---------------------------In this round, Con must rebute each of my arguments from R1. He himself has defined what a Person is..."Therefore, persons are living humans."A fetus is human... And biology and scientifically alive. A fetus is a person. My argument I and II have explained through harden science that a fetus is a living human. As Judge Blackmun stated, if a fetus is determined a person, Roe's case for abortion crumbles.“In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” -Mr. Justice Blackmun [7] The premise of Roe's argument was on the premise of privacy. This was defended by claiming that abortion was a matter between a woman and her body. It's implicit that if a fetus is considered a person, that case falls apart because it is no longer a matter of her and her body anymore. As Mr. Blackmun implies, her Bodily Integrity ends where the fetus' begins.7) http://tinyurl.com...