Choose Any Topic!
In R1 you will state 4 topics. I will then in R2 choose one topic and begin to argue my case. I must be Pro and you must be Con. Any definitions necessary must be provided by my opponent in R2.
Depending on the debate the BOP may vary
No new arguments in the final round
If you break any of the folloing rules you automatically lose.
R1: Rules and definitions by me, you will state your 4 topics
R2: I will choose a topic, you will define terms that can be debated by me
R5: Counter Rebuttals
These will be provided by my opponent once the debate topic is decided.
1. Should abortion remain legal? (I will be Con)
2. Evolution vs Young Earth creationism (I'll argue for YEC)
3. The bible is a good source of morals (I'm Pro)
4. Atheists have no objective reason to have morals (I'm Pro)
We can talk more specific resolutions in the comments
I choose topic 1, and will therefore be advocating that abortions are to remain legal (presumably in the US - correct me if I'm wrong). I will now hand it over to my opponent to define all terminology neccessary for this debate. The BOP will be shared.
Sorry it took me a while but here are my definitions:
Abortion - The intentional killing of a fetus.
Legal - Lawful; Permitted by law
What I am arguing for:
Abortion should only be permissible if the mother's life is in danger.
Look forward to your arguments
Con essentially concedes before the debate even begins. I accepted the following resolution: “Should abortion remain legal?,” as Pro. He then states that he will be advocating the following: “Abortion should only be permissible if the mother's life is in danger.” This is a concession since part of my argument will revolve around the concept of the mother’s life being in danger. I only accepted that abortion should be legal, I am allowed to argue that the mother’s life is in danger and Con has basically pre-emptively conceded this argument.
I would like to contest with Con’s definition of abortion before I get onto my case. It is more accurate to change the definition to the intentional killing of the fetus up to 24 weeks since my case will primarily revolve around the abortion in countries such as the UK where abortion is only considered legal up to 24 weeks into the pregnancy (14). I’m sure that this will not affect my opponent’s case in any way and that they will agree to my definition. The BOP is split. I must argue for abortion to stay legal. Con must argue for abortion to be illegal.
My framework for this debate will be based around libertarianism and the fact that the government has no right to interfere with our choices. Con must provide an alternative framework and a reason as to why there framework is preferable in order to gain a huge advantage in this debate. Without a response or sufficient acknowledgement of my framework libertarianism will stand and therefore voters ought to look at this debate from the libertarian perspective brought up in this debate by me.
This is a case that is very controversial amongst libertarians however with the support of my contentions I will attempt to eliminate the other side of the debate (from a libertarian onset). Would you find it acceptable if you went to get some food and the government stopped you from doing so? The reasonable and rational answer is no. So why would you allow the government to step in and stop you from doing what is best for you and your baby. The baby is yours and the government have no right to make decisions on your behalf - especially when there is no personal look upon the situation. If abortion is to remain illegal (as Con proposes), then the government won’t come in and look to see if there is no hope of anything good coming out of the pregnancy and allowing an abortion. The government will simply not allow the act to occur no matter what the circumstances because abortion is illegal. Simple enough. No that this has been explained I will reiterate the food analogy. You have some food, the government then come in and stop you from having this food. This is unacceptable, as any rational person would argue. Now put the fetus into this perspective. You have a baby. The government try to stop you from aborting this baby. Is this acceptable - no. You have the choice and the right to do what you feel is beneficial for the baby and due to this you ought to prefer the legalization of abortion over the illegalization of abortion.
Contention 1: Is the fetus alive?
The requirements of being alive require many things. The acronym that is usually taught is MRS GREN (1). I will address each individual one separately. Remember that each of these requirements must be met in order for the fetus to be classified as living (1).
Movement - The fetus can move so this part is met.
Respiration - The fetus cannot respire on its own (2).
Sensitivity - The fetus cannot sense at 24 weeks or even 28 weeks (3).
Growth - The fetus does grow.
Reproduction - Whilst it is a fetus, no it cannot reproduce (4).
Excretion - This is possible however very rare and unlikely (5).
Nutrition - The fetus cannot independently take in nutrition.
If one of these wasn’t met then the fetus would not be considered alive. The fetus was only able to meet 2 of these. Making it considered not alive (1).
Contention 2: Illegal Abortions
When an abortion is legal there is absolutely no point in having an illegal abortion because they have been proven to be very dangerous and expensive. If abortion are legal then illegal abortions will negatively correlate (6). These illegal abortions have been known to kill both the mother and the baby and sometimes result in extreme suffering on the mother’s behalf (6). Mothers are not doctors so these illegal abortions also occur later than 24 (and even 28) weeks meaning that the babies suffer too (6)!
Did you know that:
“13% of pregnancy-related deaths worldwide are related to complications of unsafe abortion.”(7)
This statistic is shocking but demonstrates my point very well. These unsafe abortions are illegal abortions and this is what is currently happening because abortions are illegal in places.
Contention 3: Underaged teenagers
“19% of teens who have had sexual intercourse become pregnant each year. 78% of these pregnancies are unplanned. 6 in 10 teen pregnancies occur among 18-19 year olds.” (7)
This statistic is extremely significant for many reasons. Firstly, if this occurs amongst 18 - 19 year olds then this is extremely bad. Having to look after and care for a child ruins their chances of going to college / university. Your twenties are your most important period of your lives according to many sources (8,9,10). Having to look after a child in this period of time is extremely stressful and prevents you from getting proper qualifications and more importantly, it prevents you from getting a full time job and a house. Children are extremely expensive to have and having a child at the time when you should be looking for a job makes income problematic. On top of this you will have to pay huge amounts of money.
“To raise a child born in 2013 to the age of 18, it will cost a middle-income couple just over $245,000, according to newly released estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's up $4,260, or almost 2%, from the year before.”(11)
Now let's compare this to the average income of a family:
“The typical U.S. households pulls in $51,371 per year.”
Now teenage parents are most likely to make a lot less than this but let's take this statistic anyway. Assuming that this ‘average’ family spend no money at all on anything. It will still cost them almost 5 times their yearly income to equate to that amount. Of course they will need food, clothes, mortgage, heating, electricity etc. on top of this sum of money.
Now if this seems like a lot you should double the cost of a child figures (assuming that they have another child), what will you do then? Not allow an abortion? Allow these teengagers to pay almost $500,000, earning (most likely) less than $51,371 per year.
Contention 4: Gender Equality
Pregnancies have a huge impact upon people’s lives - in particular the mother. As Sarah Weddington stated:
“A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life.” (13)
“[And we feel that], because of the impact on the woman, this … is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy.” (13)
This was a very important case showing that without the right to a termination, you are denying women a right and therefore what my opponent is advocating is gender inequality.
The philosopher, Judith Thomson said:
“If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality .... and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the foetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all.” (13)
This emphasizes my previous point in regards to the denial of gender rights and equality and therefore we come to the following conclusion:
P1: Denying women an abortion is gender inequality
P2: Gender inequality is a violation of human rights
C1: Abortion legalization stops gender inequality rights
C2: Abortions should be legalized
Contention 5: Mother’s Life
“The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 10 times as high as that associated with abortion.” (7)
This means that in almost ANY circumstance, an abortion is safer than a pregnancy - even if the abortion is for reasons unrelated to health.
99% of all pregnancy related deaths occur in countries that have no option to an abortion (15). The correlation is evident between the lack of abortion and the maternal mortality. By the end of 2015, 303,000 mothers would have died due to the lack of abortion availability (15).
In order for abortion to be considered wrong, several premises must be proven:
P1: Abortion is the intentional killing of fetus.
P2: A fetus is an innocent human being.
P3: The abortion of the human being falls under the US law’s definition of murder
P4: Murdering innocent human beings is wrong and forbidden by US and international law.
Conclusion: Abortion is wrong and should be made illegal.
Premises one is undisputed as it is a definition that my opponent and I agreed upon. I will go into more detail with the other premises.
My first argument is that a fetus is the result of two human parents through sexual intercourse. The fetus or unborn baby has very alike DNA to his/her parents. If the unborn baby is not human, then the question is, what is it then? The difference between the unborn baby and its fully grown self can be broken down into several categories: size, development, environment, and level of dependency. Other than these factors, there are no significant differences between the unborn baby and you and me. Are midgets and infants less human than Yao Ming? Are children and teenagers less human because their brains haven’t fully developed? Does place affect my humanity? Like unborn babies, one year old infants left to their own devices won’t live very long. 
Even science acknowledges that fetuses are human beings. Even pro-abortion advocates like the New Scientist acknowledge that the fetus is a human being:
“The task force finds that the new recombinant DNA technologies indisputably prove that the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine.” 
Here is another example from a medical embryology textbook:
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.” 
So in conclusion, science confirms that an unborn baby is a human being. Therefore, he/she is a human being without imposing outside, quasi-religious concepts such as “personhood”.
The second half of that premise states that the fetus is innocent. The burden of proof is on Pro to prove that the fetus isn’t innocent because as the saying goes, “Innocent until proven guilty”.
Here is how US federal law defines murder:
“(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
Any other murder is murder in the second degree.
The killing of the unborn baby can be seen as unlawful as it violates the Due Process clause in the 15th Amendment. The Due Process clause in the 15th Amendment states that no one should be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Since the child’s life was taken away without due process of law then it is unlawful.
It is also important to note that abortion can also fall under the US law’s definition of child abuse:
“the term “child abuse” means intentionally or knowingly causing death or serious bodily injury to a child” 
Not really much to say. Any civil society believes that murder is wrong. Unless you want to debate on whether murder is objectively wrong, then I rest my point here. Also the US federal government has a law pertaining to murder:
(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;
Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.” 
The legality of abortion is determined by state law. Because the premise that the unborn child is a human being has been proven, they are protected under this federal law. This would mean that state abortion laws contradict the federal law. And according to the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, federal laws trump state laws. Therefore, the state laws that legalize abortion should be abolished.
In addition, abortion also violates the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights that the United States has agreed to abide to.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as... ...birth or other status.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
2. 189(2543):8–9, 18 March 2006 --- New Scientist
3. Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
P1 - Abortion is the intentional killing of the fetus [up to 24 weeks]
I would like to edit this so that the brackets is added since without the added brackets, this would no longer be a discussion on abortion but a specific type of abortion - late term abortion which is not what I am advocating. Other than this, I have no objections to this premise.
P2 - A fetus is an innocent human being
My opponent generalizes the fetus. Let me put his example in the context of an egg:
An egg is not fully grown. It will soon hatch and form an animal . With the exception of vegans, members of society consider eggs to be non-living things. Despite the fact that they have very similar attributes that we can assign to the fetus. The fetus will soon ultimately become a baby. The egg will also ultimately form a baby (although not human) .
Now let me make a reiteration of the things that separate a fetus from being a human being. I will not cite sources for these as this is a reiteration of my contentions which you can view in the previous round above. The fetus cannot respire on its own. The fetus cannot sense on its own. The fetus cannot reproduce. It is extremely rare for the fetus to excrete and if it does then it will have problems with its development and it cannot independantly take in nutrition. All of these separate the fetus from being human.
My opponent states categories that are very exclusive of some of the key points that are used to identify life. I will address each of my opponent's categories regardless.
I agree that size, development, environment and level of dependancy are factors in differenciating a fetus from a baby or a human however my opponent then goes on to state that: 'other than these factors, there are no significant differences between the unborn baby and you and me.' As previously described here and in my contentions this is not the case.
My opponent seems to think that authority immediately = credibility however this is not the case. Abortion is still a hugely controversial issue and just because you site one scientist saying that abortion is the termination and murder of a human, this does not mean that it is true. You fail to highlight the quotations significance and you, furthermore, fail to show me how these scientists came to the conclusion that abortion is murder. Quoting them saying that aboriton is murder is not sufficient to prove your case to me.
A good analogy for the abortion case is the following:
"Say we have to sort a set of gray cards into a pile labeled "black" and a pile labeled "white". Assume we are not allowed to place anything in a "gray" pile. We will obviously be presented with some cards that are so light gray that we are all comfortable throwing them into the white pile. Other cards will be so dark that everyone is comfortable throwing them into the black pile. But then there will be the cards that are not quite so dark as to be black, or so light as to be white. Most people will be confused which pile to throw these cards onto. People will have legitimate reasons to call such cards either white or black." 
We don't know what abortion is at the moment (for a fact). Therefore, you need to do more than just show me somebody saying that abortion is murder. I need scientific proof to be satisfied. I understand the science behind the reproduction process however just telling me that life begins with fertilization and then explaining the science behind it is, again, insufficient because you aren't actually telling me WHY life begins at this stage. Furthermore, only 1.4% of all abortions occur at 21 weeks and above . Meaning that most abortions occur when the baby is an embryo and an embryo is confirmed to be non living [3,4].
Because of this, the rest of my opponent's explanation of P2 fails.
P3: The abortion of the human being falls under the US law's definition of murder
It is not murder because my rebuttal of P2 and my contentions prove that the fetus is non-living. It does NOT violate the Due Process clause in the 15th Amendment because the fetus is not alive (and neither is the embryo). It is also NOT child abuse because the fetus has now been identified as non living.
P4: Murdering innocent human beings is wrong and forbidden by US and international law.
I agree however the fetus and the embryo are not living as my contentions and rebuttals describe and this contention bares no weight due to this.
My opponent concludes by restating his contentions again which has no point since I've already responded to all of them above.
I have responded to all of my opponent's arguments in depth and successfully refuted all of them. My opponent had the oppurtunity to cover a lot of ground on the negative side of the abortion case and they only focussed on the fetus being non-living. This currently gives me the advantage in the debate since I stand on much firmer ground due to my broader analysis of the topic. Thank you for reading. Vote Pro!
Perhaps I could have used better terminology when I stated what I would support. What I was referring to are situations where the child is harming the mother. Take for example, ectopic pregnancies where fetuses develop in the fallopian tube. If the pregnancy were to continue, both mother and child would die. Since the child is harming the mother it does not meet the premise that the fetus is innocent and ending such pregnancy would be a genuine act of self-defense. Such procedures also don't fall within the definition we agreed on for this debate as abortion intentionally kills the fetus while the goal of removing a ectopic pregnancy is to save the mother's life by moving the child from a place where it is harming the mother with the unfortunate consequence that the child dies. 
I'm rather confused by why you want to alter the definition. Correct me if I'm wrong, but reading your arguments, it seems that you believe that any abortion beyond 24 weeks would be murder therefore should remain illegal after 24 weeks. If that is the case then it seems that you and I are debating on what should be permitted with regards to the unborn child during the initial 24 weeks. If so, then I see no problem with accepting your definition.
What I'll be arguing here is that even under a Libertarian political view abortion is wrong. The right to personal choice ends when your choice is made at the suffering of others. No matter the political view, every civil government has the moral obligation to protect its people. If the government knows that someone plans to murder someone else, they should by all means intervene to stop it. Abortion is equivalent to murder so the government must put a stop to such procedures.
Is the fetus alive?
When determining whether or not a fetus is alive you could either look at it as a sum of its parts or as a whole.
If you look at the cells that make up the fetus, they pass each requirements with flying colors. They move around, undergo cellar respiration, react to stimuli in the environment, grow and develop like we do, reproduce rather rapidly, exert waste, and can take nutrition and use food as energy . The question is if the fetus is made up of living things, how is the fetus not living?
Or if you look at the whole, rationally you can't apply such criteria as there are people living today who don't meet some requirements.
Respiration - By this criteria, patients on the iron lung are not alive
Sensitivity - People unconscious or in a coma are not alive
Reproduction - People who are sterilized or naturally can't reproduce are not alive. In addition, I seriously doubt live infants and toddlers can sexually reproduce.
If there is a stage where fetuses aren't alive as Pro asserts then the transformation of the fetus from non-life to life contradicts the Law of Biogenesis which states that only life can come from life. 
Oxford Dictionary defines "safe" as
Not likely to cause or lead to harm or injury; not involving danger or risk 
Under this definition all abortions are unsafe as the intention behind the procedure is to harm the unborn baby.
According to a WHO study, most of these "unsafe" abortions occur in developing countries. In such countries, there is a distinctive lack of any proper healthcare period. With less law enforcement more pregnancies are the result of rape, along with less economic opportunities for women and poverty are all factors that may lead them to seek out the "unsafe" abortions. It seems that a better long-term solution would be to imporve the economic state and stability of the country so such women will be less likely to sought after "unsafe" abortions. 
Anyone who consents to sex, consents to the possibility of a pregnancy no matter how much birth control may be used as it is the natural consequence of sex. If their future careers and well being matter so much to them, they should have not consented to sex in the first place. For example, if I decided to gamble all of my life savings at a casino, should I be held responsible for the most likely statistical outcome that I lose everything?
It is not like the situation is hopeless for the teen parents. Adoption is always an option and there are way more people looking to adopt than those being adopted so there is a guarentee that the child will be adopted and the teen parents can continue on with their lives. 
"Pregnancies have a huge impact upon people’s lives - in particular the mother."
Anyone should really look at how pregnancies can affect their lives before consenting to sex.
P1: What about the rights of the unborn females? Aren't their rights constrained by the fact that their own mothers' decision to kill them. It is not like the father's freedoms aren't also constrained by pregnancies as they are obligated by law to financially support the child.
The idea that the right to privacy overides the right to life was the premise of slavery during colonial times. The slaves are the whiteman's property, therefore you have no right to be concerned for the well being of the slaves. Many arguments for slavery parallels the arguments for abortion such as the argument that the African slaves were sub human.
Again, all abortions are considered unsafe because 100% of successful abortions end in a dead baby. Unless it is certain that the child is putting the mother's life is in danger, statistics shouldn't be used to justified killing an unborn baby much like how I shouldn't kill someone because they have a higher probability of murdering someone else.
Looking at the study you cited, 99% of pregnancy related deaths occured in developing countries  where there is a lack of proper medical supplies to minimalize the risk of the mother's death during childbirth not because the option of abortion does not exist.
You're position was left undefined properly until after I had accepted to debate this topic. It was not stated in the resolution that I agreed to that the fetus can be aborted in some circumstance due to the fact that even if the child is harming the mother, my opponent's position ( in terms of the original resolution that I agreed to ) states that he must argue that abortions shouldn't be illegal and since no exceptions are made under this original resolution then I see no reason as to why my opponent should be allowed to alter it after my acceptance. As my opponent correctly states, in this scenario the fetus is not innocent however this was an argue I had used in my case due to the lack of coincision between both of our interpretations of the resolution. Since the original resolution is the one that both parties accepted to, we ought to abide by that and therefore this argument goes in my favor and my opponent has conceded this point.
The definition of abortion has been altered to include [up to 24 weeks] into the prenancy. My opponent has agreed to the definition that I presented and therefore this is the new definition of abortion in this debate.
An abortion is NOT equivalent to a murder because in order for abortion to be considered a murder then the fetus must be considered to be a living thing. I will address my opponent's contesture to the fetus being alive next. If I successfully refute my opponent's argument that argues that the fetus is alive, then my libertarian framework also stands since you cannot murder a non living thing since it violates the very definition of murder iteself . This definition states: 'The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another'  as the definition of murder. Also, even if the fetus is even alive, I have already demonstrated that the fetus is unable to sense and has no consciousness in my arguments . Even if you buy that it is alive, it is certainly not harming anybody since the fetus cannot sense and has no consciousness.
Is the fetus alive?
My opponent says that we can look at the fetus as a whole or as a sum of parts to determine whether or not it is alive. This is not true. My opponent makes an argument showing that the fetus is alive if we look at it as if it were a sum of parts - I agree. However this argument is completely flawed since the system that biologists have constructed to determine life can only be used to assess species on a whole - not their individual parts .
My opponent then attempts to show how the system of looking at things on a whole is flawed because some people do not meet these requirements. Again, my opponent fails to understand the system. The system is used to assess SPECIES on a whole (as previously mentioned). If a few people the minority are unable to meet parts of the criteria, they still human beings and human beings are able to meet this. If 1/1000000 dogs don't grow (hypothetically speaking), this doesn't mean that biologists are going to classify dogs as non-living since this does not correctly represent the species on a whole which is how the classification system works.
He fails to understand the Law of Biogenesis because the Law of Biogenesis states that only life can come from life. This is true. What is meant by this, is that only a living thing can produce another living thing. This does not mean that non-living things that become living at a specific stage violate this rule since they are coming from their mother who is a living thing.
Not all abortions are unsafe. Stating that all abortions are unsafe is completely untrue - even under the definition provided of 'unsafe.' As I have already demonstrated, the fetus isn't alive so harm is not possible . Furthermore, I have already also proven that the fetus is unable to sense and is not conscious, therefore it cannot feel pain or harm. Normal abortions are statistically safer than illegal abortions as demonstrated in the original premise since illegal abortions have been known to kill the mother as well as the fetus and by doing this they ARE inflicting harm and thus they can be referred to as illegal / unsafe abortions .
According to my opponent, instead of legalizating abortions in these LEDCs, we should improve their economic state. I'm surpised that he thinks that such a huge thing can be achieved. Do you think that it is possible for us to pay for every single underdeveloped country to be as developed as us? The costs would be huge and fatal to our own economy. The US already spends over half a trillion dollars on abolishing povery  and if we even want to get rid of all extreme poverty (not all poverty), we are going to have to pay an additional $175 billion  on top of this figure and even after all of this, we will have to continue to do this for the next 20 years for extreme poverty to be abolished . Even if we do abolish extreme poverty, this still won't be enough to improve the economic state enough to stop illegal abortions occuring. We still have to help these countries: industrialize, remove poverty further, urbanize, etc. The much easier solution would be legalize abortion. There is no point in spending all of that money just to prevent illegal abortions.
Firstly, who said that all of these teenagers consented to sex? Almost half of all teenage girls have been forced into doing some sort of sexual act . Whether it was by their friends, they boyfriend or a rapist, the problem is massive and sexual acts includes unprotected sex.
Even for those that do, my opponent's analogy in regards to gambling is flawed. If I participate in illegal organ trade should I then be held responsible for facing the consequences of being denied health care? This denial of health care can (and has) caused death. Now let's look why they were denied their health care: they were denied health care because they participated in illegal organ trade so that they could help others and stop them from dying . Ashley Moore helped those less fortunate than herself who were denied access to organs, to illegally have these transparts to save their lives . Then when Asheley Moore needed one, they let her die because she wanted to help others . This is a violation of the libertarians individualistic beliefs (which is what this debate is based on as shown from my framework), the libertarian values the individual and therefore, the libertarian would save the individual.
Adoptions are not the alternatvie!
"Experts have found that many biological parents who place their children for adoption go through an immense grieving process, one that may last for decades. In one study cited by the Child Welfare Information Gateway, three-quarters of birth mothers still experienced feelings of loss 12 to 20 years after placing their newborns." 
This is a powerful demonstration of how adoptions can lead to depression. The disadvantages of adoption don't end here. Randy Bencanann expresses the disadvantages further:
"[It is sad to watch mother's] undergoing nine months of pregnancy, withstanding inquiries from family or acquaintances about their plans for a baby, allowing near-strangers or people they had only come to know in the last few months to love and nurture their child, and then trusting those people to follow through on post-placement contact agreements." 
I have already shown that not all women consent to sex and even if they do consent to sex, I have already shown that it is a violation of women's human rights in regards to gender equality that they should be allowed to have an abortion even if they did consent.
P1: The fetus does not have human rights because it is a fetus not a human. The fetus has been demonstrated to be considered to be non-living and therefore the fetus isn't applicable for human rights .
The rest of my premise structure has been dropped. My syllogism stands.
The slavery comparison is faulty due to the fact that the slaves actually met the qualifications to be alive scientifically. They were human beings with no differences from any other person, apart from their skin colour - which I agree is unacceptable. Slavery was opinionated, there was no scientific evidence proving that they were inferior or that they weren't human beings. The fetus has a huge amount of scientific evidence showing that it is NOT alive. Objective evidence =/= bare assertion.
I have already responded to this. The fetus cannot be harmed since it is not a living thing  and because of this. My opponent's statistic stating that 100% of abortions are unsafe is faulty and is thus it is false.
He then misinterprets the article that I originally provided. The article provided was in regards to maternal mortality. If he had scrolled down, then he would have been provided with an explanation to all of the statistics and this explanation was in regards to pregnancy and abortion oppurtunities. He has completely taken my source out of context and twisted its meaning.
My opponent's rebuttal only contests premise two which states that a fetus is a human being based on his assertion that they aren't even alive which I will refute.
Pro's analogy with the egg easily falls apart with a simple fact: The eggs that people purchase from the supermarket are not fertilized whereas the fetus is the result of a sperm cell fertizilzing an egg. Unfertilized, the egg will never become anything more than an egg. The reason why some people object to buying and eating eggs is because of the animal cruelty that goes on when collecting these eggs. 
Now I’ll go on to prove that fetuses do meet all requirements to be considered alive:
Respiration: Pro misuses his source which stated the requirements as it defined respiration as:
“Getting energy from food to carry out cell processes” 
The cells in the fetus are obviously alive so there must be processes going on within them so this condition is met.
Sensitivity: Fetuses sense of touch develops as early as three weeks where most people don’t even realize they are pregnant. 
Reproduction: At its current state, no however with proper development and give say 21 years, most are fully capable of reproducing with each other and their parents (They probably shouldn’t though) as they are all members of the same species.
Excretion: You basically refute yourself by saying that fetuses can excrete waste. If it is possible for them to excrete waste no matter how often they do it they meet the requirement.
Nutrition: Fetuses rely on the nutrients of their mother but they can still take them in without outside help. Parasites obtain their nutrients the same way but no one argues that they aren’t alive.
You strawman my argument when I referred to the pro-abortion New Scientist and the embryology textbook. I never claimed that they state that abortion is murder, rather they reinforce the fact that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. The embryology textbook was to highlight that the consensus among the embryologists or the experts in the field agree that the fetus is a living being to the point that it is standard in teaching students who wish to go into the field.
You have not given any reason as to why their statements don't carry any weight.
"We don't know what abortion is at the moment"
Not knowing whether the fetus is living or not is poor justification for abortion. Hunters are criminally liable if they shoot at something not knowing whether or not it was a deer or a human being. Demolition engineers are criminally liable if they blow up a building not knowing whether or not there are people in that building. If it is unknown if the fetus is alive or not, it should be treated as if it was alive.
“Meaning that most abortions occur when the baby is an embryo and an embryo is confirmed to be non living”
The claim that most abortions occur when the baby is an embryo is backed by your sources but not the latter assertion.
As I look closer at Pro’s sources I realized that many of them are either unreliable or do not work. I will list them below.
2,3,5 basically web forums or equivalents to Yahoo! Answers that do not cite anything scientific
2, 3 are also equivalents to Yahoo! Answers in addition to the fact that they are also broken links that lead to 404 Error pages.