Violent defense of the unborn is a legitimate tool to end abortion.

Preface: I will start this round by pointing out that Pro has completely ignored every case I’ve made outside of my remarks about his sources. In doing so, he has largely dropped all my arguments (sources withstanding). Counter-Rebuttal I: Sources Pro attempts to justify the use of full books as a source. The problem here is that books are not acceptable sources (unless he presents a specific part of the book), as you can't expect the voters to honestly read through two books to get the meaning. Pro attacks my source from Gallup Poll saying that it isn't relevant. It is however entirely relevant, as it proves a relevant point. That point is that not all people support his extreme views, thereby nullifying any claim to a moral high ground or absolutism in moral belief. It also calls into question the concept of necessity (and therefore legitimate use) of force. Counter-Case I: Morality of Abortion Pro provide us a group of Gallup studies, which shows that the phrasing of a question can greatly change the results. This actually hurts his case, by showing that many people are so uncertain about their views that even slight rephrasing can change it. Next he presents a more developed study. Pro attempts to show that the majority of people consider it murder, however it in truth shows 48% consider it murder, not the majority as he claims. Pro tries to insinuate that the 26% whom consider it taking a human life are to be include in those who consider it murder. However this is wrong, as taking a life is not the same as murder. {1/2/3} Many forms of killing are actually considered justified {4/5}, even in Abortion {6}. I would even point out that his polls never even mentioned situations wherein the mothers life is in danger. Pro goes on to state that if abortion is murder, the use of force is necessary to stop it. Firstly, these polls don't actually provide any reason why half the population (48%) are right, and the other half are wrong. The half who do not consider abortion murder must be explained as wrong. Secondly, it again does not explain how force is justifiable. Thirdly, I'll point out the public opinion doesn't matter here. Law does. We cannot fall into the belief that simply because we think something is wrong that we can murder others for it. Lastly on this note I'll remind Pro that we cannot perform executive actions, as we are not legally permitted enforcers (such as police). Pro ends this paragraph by claiming few doubt defence from "imminent, unjustified aggression". Again Pro fails to provide a proper case that abortions is "imminent, unjustified aggression", and pro also fails to source or substantiate in any way that people consider force a "necessity" against abortion (as people may perceive the required response different depending on their view of the "murder" {the very fact that 10% of the people in Pros study consider abortion a lower form of murder prove that many people treat different forms of "murder" differently, thereby nullifying pro's generalization about the required response}). Pro ends this by stating outright state that most people do not agree with him. He attempts to shoot down their belief by claiming their belief system inherently suggests they support him. This in entirely unacceptable. Pro cannot declare what other peoples beliefs are. Peoples beliefs are just that, it is what they believe. It is a complex system that is different for everyone. If they say that are against killing an abortionist, then they are against killing an abortionist. There is some variable in that action which changes their moral view on the matter. Pro however ignores this. To sum this up, if people are against the action, then they are against the action. Case I: Sentence before Trial, and the Legality of Murder. Pro fails to bear in mind that everyone deserves a trial. {7/8/9/10/11} Unlike Pro's case, this is a universally accepted standard. Now Pro is suggesting that it is acceptable to murder abortionists without a fair trial (given by his support for the actions of those whom have done just that). This is in breach of the most basic legal rights we have. This presents another issue. Abortion is not considered illegal in the regions that are important (as that is where abortionists can legally work. Obviously), {12} therefore a trial would not provide a sentence. If the courts do not provide sentencing, then no punishment can be provided, and any act of punishment would be a crime in and of itself, and allowing such a crime would be a horrifying precedence that shouldn't be allowed. I'll add that vigilantism is not a generally accepted act anyhow. Therefore it is not an appropriate action for someone to act out "justice" (as they perceive it) without a trial. I'll end this argument by pointing out that many people are entirely against murder. If they are against the death penalty, why would they support murdering an abortionist (especially without a trial). While it is true that most people are still in favour of death penalty, the fact that a substantial percentage of people are against it throws doubt into the morality of killing anyone as a punishment. If Pro cannot show that killing is a morally justified response, then Pro fails to prove the resolution. Simply saying over and over that 'personal belief that abortion is immoral = justification of murdering someone', is not a full enough substantiation, especially since Pro fails to properly show that any reasonable number of people agree with him, outside of trying to say that their beliefs "inherently" support him, even though they themselves claim their beliefs to not. I end this round by reminding Con that round 4 is finishing round, and cannot be used for making additional cases, only rebuttals. 1]http://criminal.lawyers.com... 2] http://dictionary.reference.com... 3] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 4] http://en.wikipedia.org... 5]http://en.wikipedia.org... 6]http://www.bbc.co.uk... 7] http://en.wikipedia.org... 8] https://www.law.cornell.edu... 9] http://www.equalityhumanrights.com... 10]http://www.un.org... {article 11} 11] http://criminal.findlaw.com... 11]http://en.wikipedia.org... ==Unitomic==