Abortion should be illegal
Contention 1: Self-Awareness
One of the arguments for abortion is that the fetus is not self-aware, but the fetus becomes fully aware during the 24th week of Pregnancy, which is why many abortions in the 3rd Trimester are illegal. (http://www.scientificamerican.com...) Many people believe that is the qualifications for the starting of a FDH (fully developed human) is when the creature is self-aware, but this has many flaws. One being that in cases of sleep and in cases of comas. Under these situations the person is not self-aware, does this mean that they are no longer a FDH until they have awoken? However the personâ€™s ability to be self-aware is irrelevant to their personhood as it is an inherent capacity for self-awareness.
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, â€œafter fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.â€" He stated that this â€œis no longer a matter of taste or opinion,â€" and â€œnot a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.â€" He added, â€œEach individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.â€"
You can see here that this further my point as one can see that life begins at conception and throughout the child's life is concidered a human life. The moment of conception is when life starts. This is because this is when you start being and because you are beginning to being. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founder of National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), created a movie that showed the realities of abortion to inform Americans. In his movie Silent Scream he stated, "â€œModern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us." Here the founder of an Abortion Rights group showed that modern technology shows us that the unborn child is indeed another human being and a valued memeber of the community though he is still unborn. (Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979).
"In fact, philosophers often use the terms self and person interchangeably: a capacity for self-awareness is necessary for full personhood.â€" (http://socrates.berkeley.edu...)
If that is true then we can see that itâ€™s degrading as different levels of self-awareness would vary across the board. Meaning that certain people like that of â€œspecialâ€" peoples and those in different medical conditions would not be considered FDH and be up for â€œabortionâ€" depicting as such in the Unwind Trilogy by Neil Shusterman. Meaning that they would also be considered less of a person than the average American. With the quote bellow we can see that people are people because they are human, not due to something they gain nor loose in their lifetime, so this can work all across the board in this debate.
"Humans have value simply because they are human, not because of some acquired property they may gain or lose in their lifetime." (Scott Klusendorf, "Advanced Pro-Life Apologetics" Biola University lecture notes)
By accepting the legality of abortion we can see that we are endorsing that a human life is disposable as Pope Francis called it the â€œThrow away culture.â€" We get rid of the unborn like they are unwanted pickles on our Hamburghers from McDonaldâ€™s and just imagine the horror of never getting to see the light of day? When we look at our stages of life we can see that from it was you there at conception and youâ€™re the same now (though taller and more mentally developed) and we can see that it was you at birth and you are here debating me, so we can see that it was you in the womb, not the body of something that would later become you. This means that once you were fetus, if it is wrong to kill you now, then it was wrong to kill you then. (https://bearspace.baylor.edu...)
In the end we can see that at the least a fetus has the same FDH levels that of a person in a coma or asleep.
Every organism must be able to maintain a consistent internal environment. This is often seen done through sweating, excretion and blood plays a major role. There is no set law on how one’s internal environment must be maintained, so long as the organism can accomplish this, it’s performing Homeostasis. The Fetus performs a great deal of Homeostasis through the Placenta. The Amniotic Fluid also plays a large role in maintaining body temperature. The fluid stays slightly above the body temperature of the mother in order to keep the fetus’s body temperature where it needs to be. (http://americanpregnancy.org...)
Every organism must require Metabolism, the transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and the decomposing of organic substances (catabolism). The energy is used to vastly support homeostasis and other phenomena. The fetus maintains a good deal of metabolism on its own. Many primary hormones, such as insulin and glucagon, don’t pass through the placenta. This means the hormones are produced within the fetus. The mother’s own hormones play a minor role in the fetus’s Metabolism. (http://www.reproduction-online.org...)
There are many who believe that life starts with a heartbeat, or some who argue that it’s about being self-sustaining. Neither is correct. Life has nothing to do with a heartbeat, or self-sustainment. This is an issue of flawed Cause and Correlation. That because someone is alive because he has a heartbeat, when in reality he has a heartbeat, and brain signals, and digestion… because he is alive. We can measure if you die by using your heartbeat, but it’s not because of your heartbeat that you are a living creature. Your heartbeat just keeps you alive. A tree has no heartbeat, nor does jellyfish, but even they are alive.
Self-Sustainment isn’t used to measure life either. The idea that humans are self-sustaining is far from reality. Humans depend on bacteria to live, if we lost the trillions of microorganisms and bacteria in our bodies, we would simply begin to die. (http://www.scientificamerican.com...)
In China, women their generally tend to have the world’s lowest rates of breast cancer, but the numbers have been skyrocketing so the Chinese government launched several studies into the incident and has found that an abortion has the chance to increase the rate of breast cancer after an abortion by 600%! This study was backed by the New York City Science Advisor to the Coalition of Breast Cancer/abortion, Joel Bind. Bind has stated that the link found between the two is that of a cigarette link to lung cancer. (http://www.naturalnews.com...) Dr. Jane Orient has found that the reasoning behind this is that estrogen increases by 2000% during the end of the 1st Trimester which in turn increases vulnerability to estrogen-fueled cancers and that a full pregnancy decreases the risk of milk producing stem cells to divide into that of cancerous cells. (http://www.sciencedirect.com...)
As we can see from above is that there is a direct corrilation between abortions and breast cancer as the statistics show that it's near 1 abortion per breast cancer incident.
They have also found that abortion causes PASS (Post Abortion Stress Syndrome) which leaves women in mental anguish similiar to the effects of shel shock. (http://www.abort73.com...)
Contention 3: Life of the Mother
In 2012, the Dublin Declaration on Mental Healthcare reached a ground breaking finding that abortion is not necissary to save the life of a mother as 140 scientists observed this study. They released the following findings.
-“As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.
-We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.
-We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.” (http://www.lifenews.com...)
Since I've ran out of characters I shall pass things off to Con for this debate.
I'll begin by addressing your arguments, none of which are new to the "pro-life" side of the abortion debate.
The first individual you quoted in your case was Dr. Jerome Lejeune of the University of Descartes. Dr. Lejeune was Catholic, and his religion had a heavy influence on his opposition to the practice of abortion. As much as I respect freedom of religion, in our society, church is to remain separate from state, and considering this is a legal debate, he is not a valid source.
But if you would like to talk about Dr. Lejeune, we certainly can. He also firmly opposed in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and the usage of contraception. This avid dissident of the process of abortion was willing to refuse legislation of a bill that would have prohibited all forms of birth control, leaving no options for those who did not wish to have children (please do not propose abstinence because it is an unreasonable and unrealistic solution). Potentially, Lejeune's resistance to the use of contraceptives was due to his view of ova and sperm cells being sentient due to their capacity for life. An individual such as Lejeune who perceives gametes as being equal to fetuses, and fetuses as being equal to developed and self-sufficient humans, is not a credible or reasonable source for any debate, much less this one.
Next, you talked at length about the various definitions of life and the various proposals of the time life begins. You seem to be confused as to the point at which this actually occurs, so for simplicity's sake I'll let you know that I believe life begins at conception. This is an objective, scientific fact. Technically there is life before conception, due to gametes' capacity to carry out the processes of life, however, we'll go by the definition that human life begins at fertilization.
Humanity and personhood, however, concern two very different concepts. Humanity is the ability to be human - your genetic makeup that dictates you are a homo sapiens. Every individual with similar genetic makeup is considered human, or a member of our species. Personhood is more vague and has been debated for years. There was a time when women were not considered persons under the law, and various racial groups have seen the same around the world. Conversely, some non-humans have been named persons, such as Sandra the orangutan. Keep in mind, however, that at this point in time, in North America, fetuses are not considered persons under the law and therefore are subject to the rights of animals, for example, but not human rights*.
*To clarify, the term "human rights" is rather a misnomer, and in this case I am using it to refer to rights we receive under the law and international documents due to the recognition of our personhood.
I will explore the idea of personhood later in my case, but in the example of a mother and her unborn child, the only individual who may benefit from human rights is the mother. This needs to be acknowledged but is something you have skipped over.
Secondly, you brought the topic of cancer into your argument by stating that a history of abortion increase's an individual's risk of breast cancer. Unfortunately, this is entirely irrelevant. Your proposal is that abortion should be illegal, not that it shouldn't be forced upon pregnant women. Anyone who consciously and voluntary subjects themselves to the procedure of abortion does so on the premise that it may lead to health complications in the future. It is the responsibility of the individual to become educated, and the job of society to educate, but the international legalization of abortions does not coerce anyone into partaking in a medical practice for which the consequences are personally undesirable.
Your final contention regarded the life, health, and wellbeing of the mother carrying a fetus. This contention is underdeveloped, and if we explore it properly we find it holds no real value. There are many cases, such as that of an underage pregnancy, wherein someone is physically unable to carry a child. The scope of this debate is international, so let's look at the case of El Salvador. In 1998, the federal government implemented a law prohibiting abortions without exception. Since the law passed, unprofessional abortions have increased tenfold, a direct contradiction to your assertion that "The prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women." Not only are women in El Salvador seeking illegal means of abortion in acts of desperation, they are clearly unsatisfied with the medical care available to them.
My case today centres around three contentions, all of which do relate to the information already presented. These contentions cover bodily autonomy, human rights, and the welfare of both child and mother.
I. Bodily autonomy
First, nearly all arguments made by individuals who identify strongly as "pro-life" revolve around the fetus' alleged rights to life but neglect entirely the rights of people who are pregnant and forced to carry pregnancies to full term. Bodily integrity (autonomy) is defined as the inviolability of an individual's body and the rights to health and security.
Casting aside the fact that someone who finds themselves pregnant may be unwilling or unable to provide proper care to their unborn child, it is immoral, unethical, and illegal under most national law to force anyone to house another human within their body for up to nine months. Regions that prohibit abortion generally violate implemented laws considering bodily integrity. The toll that pregnancy and childbirth (natural or caesarean) takes on one's body is unreasonable to impose on anyone who has not consented to the condition of being pregnant. Physical demand during pregnancy, birthing, and recovery increases exponentially with twins and sets of multiple children.
According to Dr. Dorothy Shaw, professor in obstretics and gynecology at the University of British Columbia, "There's a clear connection between countries that have a high fertility rate, where women are having six to seven children, and maternal mortality rates." Other complications arising from pregnancy include (not an extensive list by any means):
Depletion of nutrients from the mother's body (e.g. Maternal Depletion Syndrome)
Failure of uterine muscle tissue
Premature labour and birth complications
In the case of organ donation and transplant, bodily autonomy is integral. When we look at blood donors, no one is legally capable of giving a blood transfusion without previously having consented to it. Additionally, corpses are granted bodily autonomy in the realm of organ donation and transplant - if you don't agree to donate your organs while you are alive, they cannot be taken from you once you die. By prohibiting abortions entirely, you grant women who are pregnant, or have the potential to become pregnant, fewer rights than not only a fetus, but a corpse.
II. Personhood vs. humanity (and the false hierarchy of rights)
Secondly, when we return to the concept of personhood in contrast to humanity, we see a false hierarchy of rights. During the first trimester of pregnancy, a fetus, while scientifically classified as human, is little more than a cluster of cells carrying out basic life functions. The prioritization of these cells' perceived "rights" over the rights morally and legally granted to their mother is unethical and ought to be viewed societally as being absolutely unacceptable.
Just as there are non-human persons, we have to acknowledge the presence of human non-persons, fetuses. While they are granted some rights as humans and sentient beings, their rights are inferior to those of persons under law, and it is a great stretch to consider them as even having equal rights. Their complete dependency on another human is a violation of that human's bodily integrity and by envisioning a fetus' rights as being remotely equivalent or superior to the rights of women who are both persons and humans, we completely demolish the value of a person and our collective concept of human rights.
III. Welfare of the child and mother
Finally, let's look at the welfare of the unborn child who, if forced to be carried to term, will likely see a poor quality of life throughout their upbringing. Abortion is not an easy decision to make, even when medically necessary, and often causes emotional discomfort to the individual choosing to abort. To proceed with such a process, there is generally solid reasoning behind the mother's decision (and if not, they likely weren't set up to be a great parent anyway). Abortion is not only humane to the mother in allowing her autonomy over her body, but oftentimes is humane to the fetus.
Reasons for abortion may include:
Failure/neglect of contraceptives
Financial inability to raise a child
Physical inability to bear a child
Lack of familial support; full responsibility of raising a child
Poor social status and lack of resources to provide to a child
Prevention of the birth of a child with birth defects
Mental illness/emotional stress caused to the mother
All of the above are valid reasons to abort a pregnancy, many of which are issues unsolvable through the process of adoption. By permitting abortion, we ensure better quality of life for the children who are born.
It is here where I take issue with the term "PRO-LIFE." On top of your denial of bodily integrity to the pregnant mother, you now refuse to acknowledge the needs of a real child - it appears that you, along with other opponents of abortion, are significantly more "PRO-heartbeat-and-respiration" than you are "PRO-morality." While your intent is to protect the life of a breathing creature, you do more harm in the process through violating the rights and degrading the quality of life of both the mother and the potential child.
Okay I do appologize for this as I did have to cut off my arguments from my last round as I ran out of room, so I'll finish those up and then I'll post my refutations.
Contention 1: Self Awareness.
The evaluation of life, as defined by Biologists, is done by locating Signs or Characteristics all life possess. While no full list is accepted on a universal scale, at least twelve characteristics are generally used in Biology, often in lists of five or seven. They are as followed:
Organization: Defined as composing of cells.
Genes: To consist of DNA and RNA.
Adaption: Changing to match the environment around it.
Homeostasis: Maintaining a consistent internal environment.
Metabolism: Sometimes called Thermodynamics, it’s the transformation and use of energy.
Response: To react to stimuli or to the environment around it.
Reproduction: To be able reproduce or bear children.
Growth: To grow in size, usually referred to as Cell Growth.
Excretion: Removing wasted from the organism’s body.
Respiration: The intake of gases needed to live.
Feeding: The consumption of resources to live.
Movement: The ability to move that even plants have.
It is well known among biologists that the fetus responses to external stimuli. At what week it begins to react is not known, and no estimates are universally accepted. 
In the study mentioned in the prior segment, the researchers used noise to test the fetus, and found that the fetus would stop responding. It adapted to the noise through habituation or sensitization. These are primitive forms of memory, but the fetus did nonetheless adapt to and remembered the noise. There is other research that suggests the fetus adapts to stress. This adaptation usually involves increased maturation in the Brain and Lungs. 
Being able unable to reproduce only means you aren’t fully developed or that your development was messed up, but you can still be alive. So how does one handle this characteristic? A good move would be to accept that this characteristic need only be found in one’s species. Of course, we could also use information from Vorvick and Stork to conclude that, on a cellular level, the zygote is reproducing. 
Last round I have already posted many of these reason on how the fetus is alive in refutation to my opponent's second contention, but I'll continue by extending those points across as they were dropped by adding on to it as they help prove this point. The fetus does not breathe through its mouth, but through its umbilical cord. The Mother inhales, and the oxygen is sent to the fetus through the placenta. The placenta then transports the CO2 back to the Mother via the same means.  This would call us to ask whether this counts as Respiration. The answer is simple. Yes. As mentioned in the criteria, respiration is not about means and ways. It’s about bringing in a gas to live, and Fetus does bring in gas. While it doesn’t ‘breathe,’ it does require and take in oxygen. It should be noted that the heart begins to beat just 10 days after implementation, during the first and second week.  This is around the time it’s begins receiving nutrients and oxygen from the Mother. As discussed in the prior sections, once the placenta is finished forming, the fetus begins receiving oxygen and nutrients (same as the last source). By receiving nutrient from the Mother by week 1-2, the fetus fulfills the criteria needed for Feeding. As stated, it is not a matter of means. The fetus need not eat much the same as an adult. It need only require and take in nutrients. The fetus does this via the umbilical cord.
Prior to conception, the two human Gametes, Sperm and Egg, each contain one pair of Chromosomes, for a total of 23 chromosomes each, or 46 pair together. During fertilization, the two sets merge, forming 23 pairs of Chromosome. After Fertilization, the diploid cell, a zygote, that is formed contains a full set of 46 human Chromosomes.  Even at conception, the zygote contains Genes.
My opponent has demonstrated blatant disregard for an essential element of my case in which I made the distinction between humans (i.e. people*) and persons. In the interest of clarifying this subject, here are Oxford Dictionary's definitions of the two terms:
Human (n.) - Of or characteristic of people; of or belonging to the genus Homo
Person (n.) - A human being regarded as an individual under law
*In this context, the collective for human is humans or people, and the collective for person is persons.
Once again, while a fetus' DNA allows it to be classified scientifically as human, it is not considered an individual under the law. When I talk about human rights, as legal rights granted to legally accepted persons, we see that they are, internationally, not applicable to fetuses.
For example, we can look at the National Conference of State Legislature (www.ncsl.org) of the USA and its description of fetal homicide laws: "[Feticide laws] have focused on the harm done to a pregnant woman and the subsequent loss of her pregnancy, but not on the rights of the fetus." The description goes on to state that while the mother is protected under law, the fetus is not, and that advocates prefer "criminalizing an assault on a pregnant woman and recognizing her as the only victim."
The crux of my opponent's case (Round 2) is that a fetus is considered human from conception and that even a human zygote has equal legal protection under federal law. They have provided a list of life processes that an organism must carry out to be considered biologically living, all of which are criteria filled by the zygote. I have made no attempts to contest the fact that a zygote is alive, or that a fetus is, zoologically, human. I agree that we can define a fetus as a human being due to the presence of human DNA within its cells.
The problem with your case, however, is that even a fetus is not considered a person, legally or commonly. A zygote, and later, a fetus, is not a fully developed human, only a collection of cells carrying out life processes. Other examples of living cells include cancer cells and vascular tissue in plants. When we look at the first, we seem to have no problem killing off cancer cells in the interest of promoting a person's health, wellbeing, and long-term comfort via removing the undesirable cluster of cells that violates the host's bodily integrity (does this sound familiar?). When it comes to the latter, layers of tissue within plants, we see that they may be classified similarly to the cells of a zygote in that they are, in the technical sense of the word, alive, however they may be killed for the sake of human survival and the need for nutrient consumption. We can compare this to fetal cells, which may need to be killed just to keep the mother alive, in drastic cases.
In reference to the two sources you have presented:
I. Lejeune is a poor source for this debate not because he is Catholic but because his Catholicism interferes with his perception of abortion; Lejeune's "religious" oppositional arguments are not grounded in fact and are merely spinoffs of his religious beliefs.
II. The quote taken from Locke, i.e.,
["No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind."]
acts as a direct contradiction to the rest of your case for two reasons - the first that this quote refers only to persons rather than to humans. The term "mankind" may be assumed to refer to legal persons rather than humans, prioritizing persons over other living things.
The second contradiction here is that even if you want to assume that the words "mankind" and "another" in the quote refer to humans, you are once again considering a fetus as being not equally as important, but even more important than its mother, countering Locke's statement. "When his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind" - if you are pregnant and you do not wish to be, John Locke here is in agreement that an abortion is reasonable and that you may put your own needs above the so-called "preservation of mankind."
You've then gone on to state that "a single, just newly fertilized egg...has acquired human rights as it is now alive and the government must protect it." Unfortunately, you once again neglected my proposal of the term "human rights" as being in reference to legal persons rather than humans (and failed to propose an alternate definition for the term, so I am going by the assumption that you accept this definition). If you truly believe that every living thing has equal human rights under the law, and that it is the government's responsibility to protect every living organism, treating it as a person, then you should immediately refrain from eating any animals which have been slaughtered for food and from directly or indirectly funding corporations responsible for raising livestock.
Here we can see that regardless of your personal dietary preferences, it is absolutely unreasonable to assume that every living thing, be they animals, plants, protists, bacteria, or fungi, ought to be granted (equal) human rights under the law. In fact, animals raised for slaughter are more competent, sentient, and independent than fetuses, so if anything, we should see their rights as being legally and societally superior.
Your second contention is hung up on a small idea that holds no real value. Abortion may, in fact, lead to further health complications, however I reiterate that abortion is performed only with the consent of the mother. Let's look at a different example - cigarettes. The scientific community has succeeded in informing the general public of the health risks posed to both oneself and others by smoking cigarettes. Regardless, the sale and use of cigarettes is still legal in much of North America. This is because the assumption is made that people will use good discretion in smoking and will not smoke if unwilling to subject themselves to the potential medical consequences.
Returning to abortion, we see several things:
1. The medical risk from abortion is vastly lower than that posed by cigarettes and nicotine. While it may set the stage for potential problems, it does not by any means guarantee health concerns.
2. Abortions are entirely voluntary. Nowhere in your proposition does it say that women shouldn't be coerced into having abortions, just that abortions shouldn't be legal. If you do not want to have an abortion for medical or other reasons, that's fine. The concept of being pro-choice means allowing those who need or want to abort a chance to do so. There are dangers associated with activities such as driving a car, however those are not legally prohibited because as a society, we respect that people have freedom of choice and are able to use discretion in determining whether the benefits of a procedure such as abortion outweigh the risks. It is unreasonable to assume that the former will or will not present itself as superior to the latter in every case; calling for the need for abortion to be an available option.
3. Abortion does not harm any other person. Consider the effects of second- or third-hand smoking, detrimental to those in close proximity to a smoker, in contrast to abortion, a personal and private decision that only affects oneself.
You failed entirely to elaborate on your second contention and explain why the "after-effects" of abortion are significant enough, and/or detrimental enough to others to necessitate the complete prohibition of abortions through legal means. For this, we can, at the moment, entirely disregard your second argument.
Finally, you looked at the life and welfare of the mother (third contention). It appears your argument has, perhaps unintentionally, been cut short, so I will address the information you have presented thus far. Your first assertion was an oh-so-intelligently phrased:
"You shouldn't have been having sex in the first place."
Ignoring the fact that individual sexual preferences and activity are none of the government's business, this debate is about abortion, not abstinence. Next, as you look at the practical failure of contraceptives, we see once again that your whole contention is irrelevant. We are discussing the procedure of abortion, not means of prevention of pregnancy.
Lastly, looking briefly at rape and cases of assault wherein pregnancy is unavoidable, we see your third contention in its entirety fall. Not only is it a violation of bodily integrity to be raped and then forced to carry a child, it is unreasonable to hold the mother accountable for the pregnancy. Rape is not equivalent to sex, so even if everyone were to follow your rigid, unrealistic "abstinence-only" plan, there would still be cases in which women become victims of assault and have the need to terminate a pregnancy.
In this debate, my presented contentions were as follows.
1. We must respect a mother's right to bodily autonomy, and by forcing someone to carry a fetus to term we neglect this principle
2. In the case of a pregnancy, the only individual who is a legal person and subject to human rights is the one who is pregnant, and we cannot allow ourselves to create a false hierarchy of rights in which fetuses take priority
3. Forcing a child into being born oftentimes overlooks the welfare of both child and parent and causes poor quality of life (i.e., there is always a reason to have an abortion, it is not an offhand decision)
My opponent has not been able to successfully refute any of these.
In addition, I have broken down the ideas upon which my opponent's case stands to illustrate that there is no reasonable argument to deny the freedom of choice to anyone with the potential to become pregnant.
For these reasons, the Con side has carried this debate; the motion must not stand.
Contention 1 (Opponent's 1-3): Fetus is alive
With this being the finial round I would like to point out many key dropps before I end up continuing into this argument. First my opponent dropped my Scott Klusendorf, "Advanced Pro-Life Apologetics" argument and this is highly important as it shows that the value of a person does not change over time and hence the fetus is equal to QB Tom Brady and even some guy on his death bed. We can see that this is important to this debate under that circumstance, but there's more that my opponent has dropped. Another key argument that my opponent dropped was another round 2 argument on Self and Identity as Memory. Let me give you the quote again here, "In fact, philosophers often use the terms self and person interchangeably: a capacity for self-awareness is necessary for full personhood." (http://socrates.berkeley.edu...) Now I want you to pay close enough to the word person in that phrase. Last round my opponent goes on a tangent saying that humans and persons are two different things. Though he fails to refute this argument as I went on to show and my opponent CONCEDED that the fetus does indeed have self-awareness, because of that we can see that under Con's own definitions and tangent that the fetus is indeed a person and should be protected under law by his own standards.
On the note of a personhood outside of what my opponent had dropped that I had brought up in my 1st round of arguing we can look to the the Supreme Court Ruling on Row V Wade which they ruled that Congress may define when life begins. ( http://www.realcorygardner.com...) So with that Congress has the authority to define when the personhood begins though I have already proved it. Currently in Congress Senator Rand Paul has Life at Conception at which does exactly what it says and defines that life starts at conception proving that it is to be out lawed under the premise of it being against the 14th Amendment of the Constituion which states, "
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|