The basic defense of bieng pro life abortion is a contradiction to the defense of the death penalty.

I'd like to point out that no where in my Opponent's opening round did he feel it necessary to define what the basic defense for being Pro-Life actually is. This has left me possibly wasting a round due to my opponents ambiguity, but none-the-less I will continue. Defense: - noun 3. the defending of a cause or the like by speech, argument, etc.: He spoke in defense of the nation's foreign policy. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) My opponent stated: "The BASIC defense of PRO LIFE: Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued either from fertilization or implantation until natural death. From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo or fetus kills a human being. Any deliberate destruction of human life is considered ethically or morally wrong and is not considered to be mitigated by any alleged benefits to others, as such benefits come at the expense of the life they consider as a person." Where he got this notion, I haven't the slightest idea. I see no reference stating that this is, in fact, the BASIC defense for the Pro-Life support. Also, please note that the first line of my opponent's "defense" is actually a statment of the purpose or intent of the Pro-Life group, followed by what appears to be his interpretation of a defense predicated on that statement. Since he has apparently pulled this purpose of Pro-Life advocates out of thin air, I will actually offer up a legitamite one by the American Life League. The ALL is "One of America's largest prolife organizations" (http://www.prolife.com...), as described by the top Pro-Life website, and hence a much better reference for the ideas associated with the Pro-Life movement than my opponent. "American Life League Mission Statement by American Life League Released January 1, 1979 American Life League exists to serve God by helping to build a society that respects and protects individual innocent human beings from creation to natural death—without compromise, without exception, without apology. "(http://www.all.org...) I'd like to pause here and point out one simple word that the BASIC Pro-Life argument incorporates in their mission statment: INNOCENT. As you can see at this point, my opponents entire argument falls apart and he fails to affirm the resolution. As a fetus has committed no acts of crime, and certainly has not been found guilty of any crime within the U.S. court system, it is therefore INNOCENT and a life in which the Pro-Life community attempts to preserve. On the flip side, an individual on death-row is the polar opposite of this scenario. He has been found guilty of a crime, and by definition cannot be considered innocent. Thus, his "right to life" has expired as I pointed out in the previous round. The rest of my opponents argument was filler in relationship to my first "out-of-context" round and requires no further discussion. My opponent must now prove to the audience the contradiction that exists between the defense of an INNOCENT fetus (which retains the right to life) and a GUILTY individual (who has forfeited his right to life) as per the Social Contract. If he fails to do this, he necessarily loses this debate.