abortion must be free in every country

Introduction Thank you for your response. My opponent has basically dropped my entire argument on the right to life and human dignity. He chooses to contend to about three statements, yet leaves every one of my other arguments unrefuted. The arguments he left unrefuted are arguments that must be refuted in order to justify abortion, for if you cannot refute that life begins at conception, therefore the right to life begins at conception, then you cannot justify a pro-choice position. In response to my argument on the importance of the right to life, my opponent says “you have a right to leave, baby has a right to live on BUT the woman has also right not to destroy her life so that the baby can live on” I do not understand what my opponent is saying due to atrocious grammatical mistakes. I ask my opponent to clarify in his next response. In response to me stressing the importance to the right to life, my opponent says “if your laws are wrong then it is time to change your law. maybe the has done nothing against society but still woman has right not to carry baby inside the body of herself. and abortion does not mean "kill the baby inside me", if you want and can let the baby live, the woman will not say my baby has to die, she just does not want to carry her.” My opponent does not actually legitimate contend to my statement. My opponent however does concede that the baby is of absolute innocence, but then goes onto say that the woman has the right not to carry a baby (Therefore meaning the child can be aborted?). The woman has no right to simply “not carry a baby”, if that means the baby’s life be terminated. This is because the ease of the life of the woman does not transcend the absolute innocent life of the unborn child. Also, I’d like to point out that abortion is the termination of a child’s life while still inside the womb. In response to me arguing that innocent, human life is not to be terminated do to respect for human dignity and the right to life, my opponent responds “you may have a moral rules/laws and maybe abortion is out of moral but you can not require or force somebody to live according to the rules set by society, if it contradicts the liberty of person, you have no choice.” Here’s the thing though, by allowing abortion you are directly destroying the liberty that unborn human has to live. Much like how a man’s right to murder ends at the human’s right to live, the woman’s right to have an abortion ends at that child’s right to live. Let’s also think about what my opponent is saying here. My opponent is in essence arguing that we cannot force anyone to go against their own personal liberty; therefore the individual should have the right to do anything even if it means the termination of another’s life. The reason unalienable rights exist is because we need an objective foundation from which all rights may transcend in order to make the most efficient, and morally sound society as possible. This includes the respect for human dignity, and the personal freedoms of others. Unalienable rights are not rights that were created, but trough human nature itself, have always existed. You cannot choose to have unalienable rights or not in a society, because unalienable rights are not something that is bestowed, but rather, have always existed. Argument from Provision The rest of my opponent’s arguments are dedicated to providing stories that are supposed to be examples comparable to abortion. The thing is, the stories are extremely flawed and cannot be compared to abortion at all. My opponent argues that humans have the right to stop providing for someone who is dependent others, even if it means their death. My opponent’s arguments are also flawed because under his logic a parent can simply stop providing for a very young child that can’t take care of itself because we apparently have the right to stop providing others. I argue that the parent has a moral obligation to take care of this child, whether this means having to put it up for adoption or directly taking care of it themselves. Under no circumstance can the parent simply allow the child to die though. The same goes for abortion. The unborn child has complete dependency on the mother, therefore meaning that the woman has the moral obligation to carry this child, and then when possible may either choose to continue caring for the child, or give it up for adoption. This moral obligation comes from the obligation all humans have to uphold our unalienable rights. The stories my opponent presented are flawed because the people used in the story were humans that had the ability to think, move, make personal choices, ect. and these people did not have absolute reliance on those providing for them. Conclusion My opponent does not properly contend to my opening arguments and therefore drops nearly all of them. My opponent finishes his arguments by providing stories that are supposed to be comparable to abortion, but instead brings stories that are flawed due to the human not having absolute dependency on the provider. I look forward to your response.