Pro-Choice is unethical.

In order to refute my original statement using the Hammock Scenario, you either had to a) prove there was a logical fallacy with the scenario..." Ok, False Dilemma fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I touched on this in R1, I just didn't have a fancy name for it and you didn't rebut this point in R2 or 3. My opponent would have me choose between either burning the man (Pro-Choice), or walking away, leaving him to live (Pro-Life). This is fallacious because there are many other options. In reality I could walk over to the man, wake him up, ask how his day was and then leave him to sleep again. If he was in a coma I can still check for a pulse too, then send him to a hospital for medical attention. In R1 I said: "You ask if we reserve the right to murder someone without further investigation, but who says their is not any investigation put into performing an abortion on a fetus?" I then went on to say that a person who has an abortion may in fact investigate whether they should abort or not (degenerative diseases, irregular red-blood cells, etc). Again, you did not acknowledge this fact. In R2 my opponent says: "By definition a child is a human being, therefore proving that the definition of Human Life is subjective to individual interpretation (thus proving my Hammock Scenario)." but in R3 says: "I will argue that the state of being Human is not subjective to interpretation, but is a state of being." Um... what? You contradicted yourself. ""Whether abortion is legal or not, they will still take place." This contributes nothing to the Pro-Choice argument." Sure it does. It is unethical to let women suffer and die from unsafe abortions performed in unhygienic conditions. Offering them a safe way to abort is the morally right thing to do. "False, the man in the hammock is a Human regardless of what the offender interpreted him to be. It isn't subjective to interpretation. The man could have been asleep, unconscious, or in fact deceased." Well, yea. Sure the man is a human but I'm talking about the fetus here. The fetus could be healthy, unhealthy or deceased. Either way that does not make it a human being. It has potential to become a human but it is not yet human. Is a chicken's egg a chicken? "I defined Pro-Choice as "Mother's reserving the right to terminate a pregnancy". That's the equivalent of saying, I can defend Pro-Slavery, but doesn't necessarily mean I believe in slavery. Defending slavery would be equally as unethical" No because Pro-Choice maximizes the freedoms of individuals (ethical), while supporting slavery does pretty much the opposite (unethical). "The equivalent question would be, is murder of an innocent being justifiable if rape is committed. Assuming my argument holds up, I would say no." Murder is defined as the intentional killing of another human being. Fetuses aren't human beings, although they have the potential to be. So you say that the victim, who has been violated and involuntarily become pregnant, must carry a criminal's seed against her will for nine months? Sounds ethical. Conclusion: My opponent tries to justify his "Hammock Scenario" using a False Dilemma fallacy. He has not taken some of my counterpoints into account, merely saying that his "Hammock Scenario" is right, while simultaneously contradicting himself. Pro-Choice is ethical because it maximizes personal freedom, offering safe abortion conditions and possibly preventing babies being born with diseases that seriously impact their health. With this in mind, I urge a vote for CON. Thanks to skunkrecords for instigating this debate and to the audience for taking the time out to read this debate. It was interesting and quite fun. Voters, please post RFD's as well.