args

the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

I accept this debate. Burden of proof is on Pro. Beginning Argument: -Pro is claiming that the rights of a fetus should be valued above the rights of the mother. I disagree with this claim. It has been well established throughout history in many nations that all humans have equal rights, excluding criminals who have been proven guitly and punished. Essentially, no one is valued above another. This is called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1]. -Therefore, Pro's obligation in this debate is to disprove the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is a fraction of Pro's burden of proof. Rebuttal: "If you cause an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attached to your body, hypothetically speaking... a reasonable person would say the tortfeasor must at least wait a few months until they can be separated." -This is a fallacious analogy. If I caused an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attached to my body, a reasonable person would demand that I, the one causing the accident, must be separated from the victim immediately, and the victim would agree because the victim doesn't like me because I caused an accident that made him or her a victim. -Furthermore, Pro is comparing a fetus to a victim in this analogy. This is not always the case. If a woman was raped for example, and she got pregnant, then she is clearly the victim. "that analogy could be extended to later in pregnancy, and then topped off with the fact that she didn't bother to terminate when it was more debatable whether it's a person or not." -Pro has contradicted herself. If it is "topped off" with the fact that she didn't bother to terminate before, then Pro has conceded that during the beginning of pregnancy, an infant has less rights than the mother. "if there's no significant health or life or very very significant emotional problems, aborting the infant in the womb is no different than aborting it when it is born. " -Pro has conceded that it is alright to abort in certain cases. "the only difference, that the mother is hindered, is trumped by the risks she assumed, and that leaves nothing to justify abortion later in the pregnancy if an exception doesn't apply." -What if she was raped to pregnancy? She did not "assume" any risk at all. She never meant for it to happen, and she could do nothing. Certainly, then, it would be justified? Sources: [1] http://www.un.org...