A woman has a right to an abortion .

This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:'Since this does not appear to reserve first round for acceptance alone, I will attempt to counter my opponent's arguments. Rebuttals:Pro writes 'Every woman has a right to her own body and what to do with it'Even if I was to hypothetically grant this unjustified assertion, abortion as a right would still not logically follow. Pro writes 'If guys were to be told what to do with there body there would be OUTRAGE. any and all arguments based on moral grounds are unacceptable when it comes to this topic. 'All arguments based on moral grounds are acceptable when it comes to this topic. This also fails to support the claim that 'A woman has a right to an abortion. 'Pro writes 'Dont like abortions? dont get one. 'Don't like murders? Don't commit one. Don't like rapes? Don't do one. Pro writes 'What defines life anyways? 'Good question. Since you need to affirm the claim that 'A woman has a right to an abortion. ', I expect you to satisfactorily clear up all ambiguity. Pro writes 'several religious groups and persons have claimed to go against abortion because of their religion usually this religion is christiantity'Yay for them. Irrelevant. Pro writes 'these are just a few examples from the bible that god himself wasnt even pro-life. 'Yay for Him. Irrelevant. Arguments:The Argument from lack of an argument:As Con, I am able to assume a ridiculously sceptical position as my opponent has the burden of proof. Therefore, my opponent must prove that rights exist, and that a woman has one with regards to an abortion. So far, I have not seen an adequate proof of this. There is no evidence that we have 'rights' of any sort. As a consequence, there is no evidence that anyone has a right to anything, let alone an abortion. The Argument from logic:Axiom: Babbies r goodPremise: Fetii r babbiesConclusion: Fetii r good. The first statement is axiomatic in it's veracity; there are few who would claim that babbies r not good. Although this is an appeal to popularity, I still think it's an axiom. The second statement is logically supported by the definition of 'fetus':'An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception. ' [1]The conclusion follows from the premise and the axiom; if babbies are indeed good and a fetus is a babby, then it is logical to conclude that fetii r good. Thus, there is no right to abortion. The Argument from EmotionThe argument from emotion is, put simply, a collection of gory pictures showing dead fetuses. Enjoy [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10], unless you have a weak stomach or just don't like seeing dead things. Yuck. Thus, there is no right to abortion. The Argument from ridiculous presuppositionsPremise 1: Fetuses are innocent humans beingsPremise 2: It is prima facie immoral to kill an innocent human beingConclusion: It is immoral to kill a fetusThe only contestable part (I feel) about Premise 1 is that fetuses are innocent. Life begins at fertilization [11], and a fetus must be a human life, because there's no other type of life it could be. It is a distinct individual from the mother, and being a seperate individual life that is human, the most logical view is that it is a human being. Premise 2 kind of needs to be taken at face value. I suppose if my opponent wishes to dispute it, that's his/her/its perogative, but it won't jive with my nihilist argument for me to be simultaneously arguing against rights, yet claiming that certain things are objectively morally wrong. The conclusion follows from the premises. If it is immoral to kill a fetus, then you have no right to an abortion. The Argument from Gender-EqualityPremise 1: The genders are equalPremise 2: An abortion can only be utilized by a womanPremise 3: If one gender has a right that another doesn't, the genders are not equalConclusion: There is no right to an abortionIf my opponent disagrees with this argument, then they are a sexist. Voting for a sexist is prima facie immoral, thus you must vote for me if my opponent contends this. Conclusion:I have blatantly wasted the time of both the reader(s) and of my honoured opponent. Despite that, I do have some arguments that actually make sense, and I have rebutted my opponent's case. Sources:1. Google search of 'define fetus' 2. . http://ronabbass.files.wordpress.com...3. . http://24.media.tumblr.com...;4. . http://www.cheffabregat.com...(2).jpg 5. . http://s4.hubimg.com...;6. . http://www.jillstanek.com...7. . http://www.priestsforlife.org...8. . http://www.priestsforlife.org...9. . http://www.priestsforlife.org...10. . http://www.priestsforlife.org...;11. . http://www.princeton.edu...;