The use of force to stop Abortion is justified.

In Refutation: 1) I think it is essential to understand the definition of death, as to clarify to definition of what something as ambiguous as "life" is. In understanding the opposite, we can further grasp what it is. Especially when the definition of death is the loss of "x", because then it seems evident that to be a human being you must have "x." In this case, the "x" is activity in the EEG. Since all authorities accept that the end of an individual's life is measured by the ending of his brain function (as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical for them to at least agree that individual's life began with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument? Before I get into the statements my opponent so graciously copy and pasted, I like to point out that each of them is a quote from an expert testimony. This is opinion evidence he has brought to the table. I could just as easily cite doctors who state that person-hood begins at birth, and not conception. In fact, I shall later on in this. However, first I'd like to state my own contention as to why. So, I think we all understand that humans grow and change after they are born. Pro has quoted, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being." There is a problem within this statement, because of the cornucopia of differences between a prepubescent child and a unborn fetus. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is 100% dependent on the vitality of a woman to survive. Anti-abortionists might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival; it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being"the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive. "....that detectable brainwaves begin emerging at day 40 of a pregnancy." So, firstly, Pro cited pregnancy.org for this "fact." This website is a community forum and cites no author (credible or incredible) for this article. This statement is based of a study conducted in the early 60s by two doctors named the Bergstroms. The activity then recorded was not in any way similar to what is seen on a normal EEG, which includes what people call "brain waves." Rather, the Bergstroms stimulated the fetal brain stem and were able to record random bursts of electrical activity which looked exactly like the bursts they got from the fetal leg muscles when they were stimulated. The type of awareness that brings life requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care. During this time, abortion is illegal. So, it is unnecessary and cruel to use force. This would be advocating for vigilante justice. There is a considerable amount of case tension arising in the later-half of Pro's first point as he juggles between conception and "day 40" / "when fetuses develop awareness" as being to point at which a fetus should be considered a person. I think conduct points should be taken away from Pro for his comments regarding my second source last round. I found the simplest means of describing a point already proven by my substantial citing of a medical dictionary. There is no need to laugh and be rude. The vet journal not included, I sourced two references last round, one a hard-copy book. Whereas, Pro cited nothing the first round. This round he has sourced two websites (I'm not giving you that pregnancy link) 2) "Furthermore, I have not specifically delineated that the use of physical force should be levied against the pregnant woman. It could just as effectively be leveled at the abortionist, or the facility itself." It doesn't matter who the force is levied against, doctor or patient, without reasonable cause, this act is still illegal and immoral. It also should be noted, who made you the police of the world? Why should this specific person be given reason to stop an act which poses no harm to himself nor anyone else? Oh c'mon, using the old "abortion = murder" example? The woman is making a choice to terminate a POTENTIAL human being, not a human being. A woman should definitely be given the option to control that which not only physically burdens her, but also emotionally and financially burdens her. "My opponent states "it is HER body", but the child's body is not." By this I assume you mean I am taking into consideration the woman's body and not the child's? Well, as I already have proven, we are talking about a fetus, not a child. Unlike it's mother, a fetus holds no right to liberty and to life. It's ludicrous to something that has no higher awareness should be considered a human being. I'd like to quote Margaret Sanger in saying, "No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother." "We do so everyday with legislation requiring or prohibiting a whole host of actions and behaviors." Legislation prevents actions which harm individuals and society as a whole. Abortion does neither of these things. Sources a) http://www.scientificamerican.com... b) http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org... c) http://www.svss-uspda.ch... d) http://www.lawnix.com... e) Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 31st Edition, published May 2007