The Abortion of a Fetus is NEVER Moral NOR and Imperative

Responses: @ The negation of the resolution is, "The Abortion of a Fetus is moral or imperative in at least one case." The negation of the resolution is the abortion of a fetus is moral and Imperative. The CON can not decide what he wants to argue whenever he wants. @ All the relevant factors are given in the case. The case is one where Jessica's fetus is not viable. Your scenario proves that abortion is not moral AND imperative. One reason is we do not know all of your factors. If the CON scenario is to be used then we must know all the factors. @ PRO cannot simply accept the debate and then attempt to reword CON's opening argument to suit his needs. We must have a fair debate! I am simply criticizing your scenario. I accept the debate but not the scenario. @ Burden Issue I don't care about your logically equivalent to never. I defined never in my first speech, and you did not give a counter definition. Thus we are going by my definitions therefore you must prove that abortion is moral AND imperative in all situations. @ Responsibility argument You are only responsible for you actions not in actions. It is desirable for everyone in the world to feel responsible for others welfare, but unless you are obligated you are not responsible for that person welfare. Thus I nor you (reader) are responsible for the death of starving children because we are not obligated for their welfare. @ The Murder vs. natural death argument The actor responsible for Jessica death are the medical complications, not the doctor. Murder or killing is a cause and effect relationship. Unless the Doctor harms Jessica (cause) and Jessica dies (effect) the doctor is not killing Jessica. The actor that kills is the one to be blamed, the medical complications. @ Utilitarianism argument Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. Utilitarianism is a theory that justifies actions that maximize the happiness of people, not the greater net benefit. Thus utilitarianism can not be used to measure the morality of the Con argument, because we do not know what will make Jessica happy. Jessica could feel life is pointless without her child (thus not happy) and wouldn't mind giving birth to the child even risking death. Thus under utilitarianism abortion would be immoral. 1) If abortion is murder, knowingly leaving the fetus in a situation where it WILL DIE is also murder. Abortion is murder, and if the fetus dies the murder was not any human actor. It was a natural death. 2) Not removing the fetus is thus akin to TWO murders. Look to my responsibility argument, the reader will understand that no murder is being committed. 3) Removal of the fetus maximizes benefit to all parties involved. My opponent continues to believe that he is the definitions of universal morality and can decided what is the benefit of each party. Look to my utilitarianism argument on what is consider good/beneficial. 4) If murder is killing wrongfully, the abortion of Jessica's fetus is not murder, as it is, for all intents and purposes already dead. The Fetus is not dead and no murder is being commited. 5) A nonviable fetus is arguably not a person anyway - thus, Jessica's rights trump that of the fetus'. Two completely different arguments not relevant to the debate. This not a debate about fetus being consider a person and the rights of mothers. Also it is abusive to bring new arguments this late in the round. 6) PRO must explain how bringing about a situation wherein two people die instead of one is a moral situation. The anti Christ and a child rapist are looked in a room with a bomb. Yeah letting them die is a moral situation. The CON needs to learn something called topicality! You didn't say I needed to provide a situation of two people dieing concerning abortion. Reasons to Vote PRO/AFF: 1) I affirm the entire resolution, the CON did not meet his burden. 2) The CON repeated old argument that did not refute my first three contentions through the entire round. Thus vote PRO because my contentions were properly extended. Worst debate ever!