Abortion

It's wonderful to know that my opponent percieves it to be a possibility that I could have copied and pasted by case over due to a hidden insecurity on the length of the case. I am still in awe of how either I was able to copy and paste it, or how Debate. org gliched itself. Nevertheless, we still have a round to conclude with a person who has just set forth the notion that I am justifying murder. I would also notify Con that there should be no introduction of new arguments. This round will just be a notification to the judge on how the arguments set forth in the previous rounds justify your victory. Point 1-Dependence on mothers: Con has added the argument that my logic would also justify killing babies. As I outlined in round 3, their are significant diffferances between a baby and a fetus. A fetus is not complete in having grown its mind, arms, legs, and feet. It also states that the fetus is truly complete with developing those parts on the 22nd to 24th week. That is usually when abortions are deemed illegal. A senior is still a human being is outside his mother's womb. A senior still developed all the essential human components. Fetuses do not have that. Con still subconciously rejects the fact that a fetus is truly complete between the 22nd and 24th week. Con will still have to continue equating a baby to a fetus. His justification is that a fetus is a baby in the stomach. Judges should note that it has never been rebuked that the fetus is only done developing essential components for a baby until the 22nd to 24th week. Before that, it still has not even consolidated its brain. A sperm can still be classified as an unborn male according to Con's logic. Con claims that sperm is unfertilized which bestows it with exemption. Though, it is still a fact that sperm could have had a life which fertilized. The government ought to ban masturbation, because it is expelling basic life. That is how I view this abortion debate. Stop defending potential. There is still potential for sperm to live. Point 2-The MindNo, its been solidified for the debate that the brain is consolidated after 8 weeks. That fact was inserted during round 2. I also clarified in round 2 that abortions should and are deemed illegal after 8 weeks. If I was brain dead, than I would classify myself as dead. Con's only path to victory for this argument is uncertainty. The facts have already been set forth in round 2 which completely eleminates any chance of victory for his argument. A brain is usually consolidated after 8 weeks where abortions are usually deemed illegal. Point 3: Excuse me for saying so, but I don't think inconvenience is grounds for killing a child. Con argues that it is still not on grounds for killing a child. This argument already falls due to lacking brain, body parts, and extreme dependency. Con also appears to completely ignore the fact that his world would allow for poverty wage people pay 15,000 dollars for a C-section. Poverty wage people are paid 20,000 dollars per year. A surgery like that would leave a woman destitute, and bring in a motherless child. Con would simply allow for people to be left destitute in order to insure that a lacking fetus can become a human. Con has not een retorted this argument which should be deemed a drop. Pro obviously wins this point. Con only wins if the judge truly possesses the conception that a motherless child and a mother without basic human needs is a just moral repercussion. Conclusion: I still really can't see how Con won this debate. His whole argument relies on potential. Sperm have potential. A sperm can be compared to a fetus which Con has not sufficiently rebuked. Spem do not have brains, yet they are still capable of growing those components if fertilized. Con's worldview would justify banning masturbation if we were to concede to the logic of potential. Potential is what a sperm has. Letting a sperm be expelled without it being fetilized ought to be deemed a crime in Con's worldview. We all started off as sperm. That is indisputable. Con's arguments deconstruct themselves. Take all of his arguments, and defend the rights of a sperm. If the judge percieves Con to be the victor, than sperm ought to also have rights. He can use the fertilization argument, but than I can use the child birth argument. If child birth or prefferably body parts intact does not diffrientiate a fetus from a baby, than fertilization has the same grounds as child birth.