Abortion should be a crime when the life of the mother is not in danger.

I will simply go down everything that has been said by my opponent against me. Round 1: He first speaks of a contradiction in my argument, which I have shown does not exist, and whiI ch he drops later on. Next, he says that the Constitution does not give fetuses rights. I will posit my argument again that the Constitution is not a perfect document, just because the Constitution doesn't say something, that doesn't mean that it isn't a right. Besides, I agree fetuses don't have rights, it is the future human that does. He next argues that it is not definite that the fetus will have rights, we should not treat it as such. The bush scenario remains there is two-thirds probability that by shooting the bush, I am infringing on one's right to life, and that is wrong. In an abortion, there is a two-thirds probability I am killing a person, and in doing that infringing on their rights. Killing the fetus is killing the person it would become. Next he brings up my contradiction which I answer the same way. Next he says banning abortion infringes on the right of the mother to have an abortion. There is no right to kill innocents regardless of what the Supreme Court thinks, killing is not a right. Then he says, "Adoption is not exactly a safe alternative because the woman would still have to go through labor, which could cause lifelong problems/complications." He ignores the fact that abortions are more likely to lead to complications than regular labor. Then he says a woman gets to determine whether she wants to give birth or not. The woman cannot determine whether her child can live or not, it is not here choice, she cannot kill her child just because she didn't mean to have it. Next, he calls the bush example an exaggeration, but gives no reason why. Next, he says fetuses don't have rights and may never get them. This brings us to the bush scenario, the bush does not have rights, and may not contain a man, but we can't shoot the bush. Round 2: First, he says to my argument that abortion is not a right that the Supreme Court said it was. The Supreme Court also said there was a right to own slaves, so their track record is not the best. Later my opponent reaffirms his argument that all rights come from the Constitution, which as I have demonstrated is simply wrong. Then he says that in giving the fetus rights we deny the rights of the mother. First, we are simply treating the fetus as if it would have a FLO or Future Like Ours, in which it would have rights. We can't kill that future person, that infringes on their right to life. Then he again calls my scenario of the bush an exaggeration, this time saying random murder is not the same as abortion. Apparently it is. When you abort, you are in effect murdering a person, the person just happens to not yet be alive, but you are murdering the person which that fetus will most likely become, and that person will have rights. He then says there is no probability of rights, you are either infringing or not infringing. What I am saying is that there is a two-thirds probability that it will be a person. Therefore, there is a two-thirds probability that you are murdering a person in the future. NExt, he says that it costs money to carry the baby to term, but, you cannot put a pricetag on life. Finally he says that there is an 8% chance that the fetus won't have life, therefore, it should not be treated as having rights. If I did something that had an 8% chance of not killing anyone, I would be arrested for reckless endangerment of life, 8% is a pretty small number. Why vote PRO 1. I have rebutted all of my opponent's arguments. 2. I have shown that abortion infringes on rights. 3. I have shown that the future human's right to life trumps the woman's right to choose.