Abortion

Starting from what he said last because I feel this is the most important thing he said in his last round : "My opponent has to prove that abortion is not murder. He hasn't. He has to prove that abortion takes away rights. He hasn't. He has to prove that a fetus is not alive. Again, he hasn't." You never gave me any of these burdens. The topic isn't "Is abortion right or wrong?" it's simply "Abortion". Because of this I do not have to give reasons why it is good, I just have to argue your case, which is what I've been doing. But if you wish then I shall address each point: "My opponent has to prove that abortion is not murder." I in fact have done this... "Ok... So it might live later. But you agree to the fact that it's not alive at the time so it's not murder which goes against your 1st cont." I posted that in round 1. It can't be murder if it's not alive. "He has to prove that abortion takes away rights." How does it take away rights? I'm utterly confused. And where did this even come from? That statement has no point in this round. "He has to prove that a fetus is not alive." Ok, I'll give him this. I haven't proved a fetus isn't alive... Because he already did this for me in his 1st speech. "Just because it doesn't shows signs of life doesn't mean it won't live later." That is the very last sentence in his 3rd contention is the 1st speech. ------------------------------------------------------ ""Who defines it as a baby? You never talk about who far along the abortion would be taking place. Whenever an abortion takes place it is wrong. Morals are what drive humans. Morally, abortion is killing children. My opponent doesn't argue the good of an abortion. It provides guilt for the mother. In Ohio, a girl got an abortion, but the aborted fetus was still alive. AGAINST THE MOTHER'S WILL they killed the fetus. If we give women the option to have an abortion they should have the right to save them." Maybe to you abortion is wrong but to the women who wants to have one it isn't. Who said it provides guilt for the mother? This is an open statement with no warrant or evidence and should be dismissed. My opponent's argument is about giving women rights. I f the lady in Ohio wanted her child back, is that not her right. If women are allowed to kill a life they should be allowed to save a life. My opponent does not refute this. This is my biggest voter in the round" Ok, that is post-abortion. I too believe that if the abortion fails a women should have the right to keep it. But as for abortion itself, I feel a woman who does not wish to have the baby should have the right to get rid of anything inside of her. This goes to Pro. ------------------------------------------------------ ""Who is suing anyone? How is giving black their rights even relevant to this topic? My point is that we are allowed to do anything in protection of our rights. We don't need rights to survive. My opponent refuses to attack abortion just the flaws of my case. He doesn't talk about abortion." I am pro abortion. You are against it. In this debate my job IS to attack the flaws of your case... And as to "My opponent refuses to attack abortion". Why would I attack someone I believe is right? This whole contention is irrelevant. He is not talking about abortion. He is trying to avoid this argument. That is why he can't argue it because he does not know how to refute it. So, my argument still stands. This is why this argument goes to the con." I've been refuting your arguments the whole time, even when you failed to post a round I still attacked. This goes to Pro. ------------------------------------------------------ "Ok... So it might live later. But you agree to the fact that it's not alive at the time so it's not murder which goes against your 1st cont. My point is just because we can't hear it feel it or see it doesn't mean its not alive. Horton hears a who quotes, " A person is a person no matter how small". People believe in god even though we can't see it or feel it. Should we ban the worship of god too." You seem to be arguing my side for me... Plus you never argue the fact that it DOES go against your 1st contention so this point should go to Pro. My opponent again is trying to avoid the arguments. He doesn't talk about abortion. He says "plus you never argue the fact that it DOES go against your 1st contention so this point should go to Pro." Why should this argument win the whole round. He doesn't argue for abortion, he is arguing against the flaws of my case." I've been arguing your case the whole time, that is all I'm supposed to do. *See my 1st section of this round* But once again you do not argue the fact that it goes against your 1st contention so this also goes to Pro. ------------------------------------------------------ I have effectively attacked each of his arguments so this debate should go Pro. Thank you. ------------------------------------------------------ I would also like to thank Keegan for making this debate even if he did fail to post a few times. Thanks dude and see you Monday.