The USFG Should Ban Abortion.

Argument I: Living Human. Sub-Argument I: Living. Pro has dropped all but two Characteristics, thus leaving only Excretion and Respiration in dispute. Pro is, at most, only correct that the corresponding source didn't say the fetus can fulfill the characteristic of excretion. This is a sourcing error. The final source in R2's Argument I was accidentally placed in the spot for Source 4, pushing each source up one citation. The source cited for Excretion was actually the source for Adaption, and Adaption's cited source is for Feeding. Excretion was source 9. The sources were copied over, causing sourcing errors in R3. No doubt the use of Tinyurl caused me to mismatch my sources. However, the sourcing for R2, where my source for excretion is still intact, is left untouched. By the formation of the placenta, it gives the fetus oxygen and nutrients, and then it returns the waste into the mother's system to be disposed of [1]. "As well, the placenta acts like a lung for the baby, allowing the transfer of oxygen just like the lungs do in a newborn baby or adult. Once the baby has used the blood with the oxygen, the blood goes back to the placenta to get rid of carbon dioxide and pick up more oxygen. The placenta also ensures these waste products [referring to nutrients as well, based on textual context] from the baby are released into the mother's circulation, which in turn are disposed of through her urine. " - Dr. A. Bisits. As well as my Source 9 from R2:"The placenta also carries oxygen and nutrients from mother to fetus and waste materials from fetus to mother. " - H. Brownn MD. Pro's next case is that being an organism =/= being living. He uses a virus as an example, but many do consider virus's living. .. Eitherway, a virus is not an organism by definition. It's referred in biology as an 'agent'. Virus:a) Any of various submicroscopic agents that infect living organisms [2]b) An ultramicroscopic (20 to 300 nm in diameter), metabolically inert, infectious agent [3]c) The causative agent of an infectious diseased) Any of a large group of submicroscopic infective agents [4]e) A virus is a small infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of other organisms [5]That being said, reference the definition of Organism:Organism:a) An individual living thing [6]b) An organism is any contiguous living system [7]c) A form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes. d) A form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran. [8]e) An individual form of life [9]A virus is not an organism, and therefore Pro's analogy fails to succeed. Meanwhile, an organism is always living, so my syllogism succeeds. Pro also hangs to the claim that the fetus does not breath on it's own. .. However, I already explained that independence isn't relevant, and gave off comatose patients and being keep alive with an iron lung as an example. Pro ignored this, in therefore his case is refuted. The requirement for respiration is merely that you must respire, not that it must be by yourself. Many animals and organisms can't live independantly of another organism's body. The unborn is, by conception, a living organism because it is an eukaryotic cell by conception. Even then, it fullfills all the characteristics of life by age 2 weeks, and likely much earlier. By Pro's own framework, Con wins on these ground alone. [1] . http://tinyurl.com...[2] . http://tinyurl.com...[3] . http://tinyurl.com...[4] . http://tinyurl.com...[5] . http://tinyurl.com...[6] . http://tinyurl.com...[7] . http://tinyurl.com...[8] . http://tinyurl.com...[9] . http://tinyurl.com...Sub-Argument II: Human. Pro quotes a pro-choice activist with no standing in the embryological/biological community, expecting this to counter several high-ranking biology textbooks written by major Embryologists. This is ground enough to make this activitist's opinion null. However, I will address it. This is an ancient argument that has long since been refuted by a simple logical analysis. .. The fetus's human DNA is unique, and the fetus fulfills the biological Characteristics of Life, breaking it from all of Pro's examples. A piece of hair, fingernail, or even a skin cell, has the DNA of it's owner. It is 'apart' of an organism, not a separate organism. The fetus's DNA is unique from the mother's own, and therefore a separate body. This is why the bacteria in one's body is considered a separate organism from the human. A hair, or a fingernail, does not fulfill any of the characteristics of life. .. It doesn't breath (not to confuse with symbolic breathing, IE 'letting a wound breath') or respond to stimuli or even fulfill excretion. Therefore, none of these are unique organisms, or even organisms. Unlike the fetus, which fulfills all the characteristics of life. The fetus is human in everyway. It's DNA is human, and it's (through sub-argument I) a unique organism. Argument II: Human Rights. "Anti choicers. .. " Such naming is in poor taste. Shall I call you anti-lifers? No. Show some respect to your opponents, and learn the proper naming conventions regarding idealogies (IE they must be called Pro-X. Never Anti-X. This creates negative naming bias. ) The name was used in spite of me, and nothing more. An insult against me for the crime of disagreeing on something on grounds that Pro's own framework even suggests is reasonable. Pro's own case is erroneous. He literally ignores my own case. .. I shall repeat it:"The text starts by defining Citizen as a person born or naturalized in the US. It then says that the states may not abridge on the privileges or immunities of a citizen. .. But when describing who the states can't deprive of the right to life, the amendment only says 'person'. Not 'person born or naturalized' or 'citizen'. .. Just person. This is why you can't kill or steal from an illegal immigrant. "Let's bring up the Amendment, something I didn't have the character limit for last round. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. .. [10]The text doesn't say all "citizens" when reguarding the Right to Life, despite the continuous use of the word for every other right. It only says "person. " Pro's case literally means I may murder an illegal immigrant because he is not "born or naturalized" and therefore has no human rights. Pro says pro-lifers contradict themselves by acknowledging one person's right but not another? Pro is the only one contradicting himself. .. It was HE who accepted Premise II, and now calls it 'contradictory' to use it. He treats it as though I acknowledge every fetal light, but ignores all female rights. .. However, his case also means that if I said you couldn't murder someone, I'd be contradicting myself by acknowledging that person's right to life while not acknowledging the murder's right to murder. Note that Pro has dropped the UNDHR. [10] . http://tinyurl.com... Argument III: Conflict of Rights. Pro has conceded to Premise II. .. Therefore his case is mute. He argues that all rights are equal, and none is greater than another. To quote Premise II:"Of all criteria for limiting human rights, the most common, and most reasonable, is when it invades on more important rights. "Now to quote Pro:"I agree to both of my opponent’s premises (P1 and P2). "Worse so is that his case is entirely wrong. Rights are weighed. The right to life, for example, is greater than the right to pride. I can not kill someone over an insult. To quote a phrase from Pro: "If the fetus is alive then libertarians are against abortions because libertarians are individualists and therefore value the life of the individual heavily. "Besides, US law is based on wieghing rights. Unless Pro wishes to argue that the status quo here is wrong, his belief that rights shouldn't be wieghed isn't relevant to how the USFG does things. Argument IV: Counter Violinist. The Reverse Violinist doesn't represent abortion. .. It represents pregnancy. The original Violinist fails because it fails to accurately represent what pregnancy is. The reverse violinist is useful because it does represent pregnancy correctly. The beauty of it is that none of what Pro mentions changes the situation. Whether or not the women is poor or young, the situation stays the same. Rape, however, is unique, and yet the situation for the unborn is still the same. See, the analogy only fails on Pro because he assumes it's an analogy of something it's not. It represents pregnancy, not abortion. Anyone who's read a number of Abortion debates understand the significance of the Violinist, and countering it quickly. Pro presumes the women must keep the child after the pregnancy. .. However, just like in the analogy, she can walk away and never deal with the child. Adoption is perfectly legal, and free for her to perform. Pro drops my case on Rape. Conclusion:The fetus is certainly alive. It fulfills it's Characteristics strongly. Pro only sticks to two Characteristics (excretion and breathing) which I have reassured the voters the fetus does fulfill in full. By Pro's own framework and in his acceptance of P1 and P2, as well as the UNDHR and 14th Amendment, I have proven that Abortion is a violation of those rights. The unborn, being human, has the right to life. This Right, like it is for all humans, is stronger than bodily autonomy (which the fetus also has), the right to monetary security, and the right to emotional happiness. Pro's own framework, which he contradicts and rejects when it's convenient, declares me the winner.