Abortion should be allowed

At the top I would just like to say that I have won this debate without needing to post a R3. Throughout the debate opponent has consistently avoided any analysis of my arguments, frequently picking out incidental points while avoiding the overall structure. He has continued this trend into R3. I have won this debate because: 1)My opponent never demonstrated the morally relevant factor that is the cause of a fetus lacking a right to life. He never disputed that this was his burden of proof, so if he hasn't don't this, we must accept that a fetus has the same rights as an adult. 2)My opponent never disputed my argument that the right to life trumps all other rights. This means that if the fetus has a right to life then it outweighs a woman's right to body and abortion is unethical. 3)My opponent never disputed that abortion is a justice issue and thus third parties have a duty to get involved. 4)Finally, my opponent never engaged my argument about the magnitude of the possible evil of abortion overwhelming the possibility of error. He merely challenged my math (my math was actually correct) and says I am "oversimplifying." In fact it is he who is oversimplifying. I will go into this in more detail later. Together these points demonstrate that I have won this debate. These points were all more or less ignored by my opponent. These points demonstrate that a fetus has a right to life, that the right to life makes abortion unethical, that abortion is a justice issue that warrants third party intervention, and that even if we aren't certain that abortion is unethical we should err on the side of caution. Now I will briefly address my opponent's arguments, although I contend that it is not necessary for me to win this debate. I will use my opponent's numbering. 1)You need to engage in analysis of how depriving a fetus of the right to life because of a poor quality future is different from depriving a toddler of the right because of a poor quality future. Unless you do this, there is no difference and you are justifying murdering someone if they don't have a good life. You do not explicitly do this, but you seem to imply the being born is the morally relevant difference. However, being born is just a change of location (inside/outside the womb) and it is difficult to see how the change of location is morally relevant. You might say that the difference is that post-birth the woman's right to body isn't a factor, however, I have already shown that the right to life outweighs right to body, so pre-birth deprivation of right to life is still unethical. 2)First of all, you have no idea that I "feel so strongly and believe a fetus is a human." This isn't even an argument; it only amounts to questioning my convictions. I am simply arguing to promote deeper understanding of the issue and the joy of competition. My convictions don't necessarily relate to my arguments. I cal a fetus a "thing" because my future argument does not necessarily exclude non humans- the point is that the use of one word doesn't hurt my argument. 3)Toddlers and adults do not "have a future no matter what happens." If a toddler or an adult gets killed, they do not have a future. Adults, toddlers and fetuses all have futures, barring loss of life. His second 1) The fetus may rely on the woman's body, but that doesn't invalidate its rights. Having a body that can function independently is not a prerequisite to rights. If that were true, then anyone on life support does not have a right to life. Anyone in need of a heart or kidney transplant does not have a right to life (because their body is not functioning independently, it isn't functioning properly at all). Furthermore, very few adults are fully independent. Nearly all adults rely on other people, whether its farmers who produce grain or their employers/employees. This dependency isn't a physical dependency, but you haven't provided any reason why a direct physical dependency is more morally relevant. The fetus still has a future, and so it is still ethically equal to murder to deprive the fetus of a future. Rebuttal to closing statement: Here I will address the issue I touched on in my #4 from this round. My mention of Hitler/Stalin was not an oversimplification that ignored gray area. In fact, the purpose of that argument was designed to deal with gray area! The argument is an analysis of the factors involved with abortion and the conclusion tells how we should treat gray area or uncertainty. I DID NOT COMPAR PRO-CHOICE SUPPORTERS TO HITLER AND STALING. This is a misrepresentation on the part of my opponent. This is my exact quote: "If the legal system is wrong, we are killing people on a magnitude comparable to Hitler and Stalin." No one is being compared to mass murderers. I provided a CONDITIONAL statement describing the actions of SOCIETY. Finally, I am embarrassed over my opponent's final lines. I do not know what insult I "hurled" at my opponent. Quite frankly, I would be incredibly surprised if my opponent's charge was correct. If any judges or my opponent finds one of these alleged insults in this debate, please post it and the round on the comments. Otherwise, I am innocent until proven guilty. AGAIN: VOTER NEUTRALITY