Abortion should be illegal

Liberty: the power or scope to act as one pleasesas we can see, not allowing woman to have abortion is against her liberty.not allowing woman to avoid bearing is against her power to act as he pleases. making abortion illegal is against woman's liberty.REBUTTAL:This like a restaurant owner saying that he was only denying a customer service when he shot himthe right comparison:This like a restaurant owner saying that he was only denying a customer service when he did not serve him.even this is not a right comparison, when you go to restaurant you pay and as provısıon you ask to be served, the fetus doesnt pay us. when we have abortion we rescue ourselves from fetus, comparing "not helping to somebody" with "shoting at somebody" is a fallacy?woman doesnt hit the fetus, she stops serving.My opponent's arguments misconstrue the word Liberty to mean Licence.have no realtion with thisLiberty obviously has limits as all laws limit libertiesavoiding to help is inside that limit. all laws may limit libirties but they do not forbid you from avoiding help to somebody.and he gave example about liberty. I wanna know what relation does that have with abortion? nothing more than a fallacy. yes, we dont have a licence/right to punch people standing on street, when we have abortion do we ask such licence?liberty is not a licence to maintain it but at the same time licenceLESS of woman is not a right for us to force her.PRO gave definition of torture form UN:As we can clearly see the third party must be intentionally causing the pain.when you force somebody, does not that have mental pain?from the definition he gave:Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental...when we force women to carry that fetus for 9 months, it includes both: mental and physical pain. with what kind of logic PRO said:{The definition put forth by my opponent is interpreted in a clearly erroneous manner.} that is not interpreted in an erroneous manner:{As such the definition by the UN does not support his argument.} is it not supported? the UN supports Any act by which severe pain or suffering ANY act. the UN is talking about confession, but it also talks about for such purposes 6 conditions.1) Equality of all humans is precisely what limits our freedoms.it limit our freedoms, we dont say: "our liberty means we have no boundaries in our liberty even if we want to attack somebody"but does not limit us from forcing somebody?I am prevented from stealing, raping, and murdering precisely because of the inherent equality.but not prevented from forcing woman to do something?when you steal/rape/murder that is the time when you enter into the liberty zone of somebody else, when you have abortion, it is sending somebody out from your liberty zone. I woner how a person can compare this two things: "protecting your liberty zone" vs "attacking liberty of somebody."we send fetus out from our liberty zone, while when we steal/rape/murder we attack the liberty zone of somebody. comparing these is a fallacy. most fundamental right - the right to life.for the right to life of somebody gives us a right to force somebody else? if my life is up to you, then we have right to force you?this is what rich man arguement solves this problem when antiabortionists make such excuse.even if we assumed that the woman’s right to her body is being violated, killing the child would be a greater violation as the child’s right to live is more fundamental than the woman's to her own bodymore fundamental right of somebody doesnt mean we can force somebody whose right is less fundamental in that case2)The woman does not have absolute power to enforce her libertyit is not licence for us to force her to do something. including to save the life of somebody.woman has no power to enforce, it doesnt mean we can force her to do something.woman wants an abortion doesn’t mean that she is entitled to itshe needs to be entitled to have abortion in case wantsIt was the rapist who committed the crime, the unborn child is an innocent third partyif rapist is culpable one, then force the raper to do something so that the child can live, not woman. woman is more innocent than the child.a long as child can't be left due to his innocence, women can also not be forced due to her innocence.As such the woman has no right to redress against the unborn, but does against the rapistif woman has no right to that, ]we also have no right to force her, we have to redress the rapist. you have to force rapist to do something, not raped one.{The argument greater violation of rights as explained above would favour the child.}greater violation is held against the woman in case abortion is not allowed in this case as explained above2b){As she is the parent of the child, she is the guardian of the child until such time as she safely transfers that guardianship to another. }a person is not a parent till his/her child is born.a person is not compulsory to be a guardian of the child no matter he transfers it or not. I will answer section 4 too. women arent guardians of others.4A)PRO said worldwide governments require the country I live doesnt require it. we are free to do it or to avoid it. so, it is up to governments.it is against the liberty of a person.4b) this is embarrassing to answer because it shows a complete lack of rationality to my opponents argument.the country I come from has no such requirement by law, we are free to do it or to avoid.becoming required in one country does not mean it is the way it needs to be. if government forces me to do such thing, it is against my liberty. I dont want to look after him, that is my right not to look after it.it shows lack of rationality of PRO.4c)Once again this is already resolved by the liberty vs. licence argument aboveno relation, all PRO did is to missquote me.Given that people in the third world manage to deliver children, while living well below what we would consider the poverty line, illustrates that this is not a valid argumentit does not mean "eveybody can do it if they can do it", I may have more needs than they have, for example.I may have million dollars but I dont want to spend my money for such thing, it may be out of my plans. it illustrates that what PRO said is a fallacy.The cost of the abortion is likely more than the cost of any additional food necessary to sustain the mother as a result of being pregnantit is not like that.abortion may even be so cheap. in my country, it can be done with $3.5, maximum: $35. it is up to country.5) The purpose of the government is to institute just laws based on truth and to enforce them when people fail to adhere to them.it is one of the purposes of it.. btw, as government needs to create such laws, abortion is also one of that.what PRO needs to understand is government cant change the tradition, it is up to society. government may prohibit tradition but it doesnt guarantee that no one will act that banned tradition. prohibition of it doesnt mean it wont occur, even after prohibition they may kill the girl.{Without instituting such laws, you have an unjust society based on cowardice and intimidation to avoid dealing with an unjust social tradition.I hope till the next round, PRO will learn diffrence between: "tradition and law" and "dejuro and defacto"legislative body can make laws against it but it doesnot mean: it will never happen, it may happen even though it is banned.6) richman arguement:once again what antiabortionists ignore:when we have abortion, we ignore to help as rich man ignored to help other person.we are not pushing fetus infront of train, we jsut pull ourselves from a burden, that is all.but if my opponent says: abortion is pushing a man infront of train, rich man can also be classified such, they both avoid to help.additionally, PRO said parent responsibility to child is established, that is in CAnada, I didnt find the codex of my country in english, even not in spanish or russian, but we are free to do it.and that is agaisnt the liberty of a human.additional arguements:1)that is not justification of legalising crime, but to avoid helping is not crime, that is right of person, inside her liberty.in the same way, that is not justification for forcing woman to do smthg.2)hitting men is attacking somebody while abortion is not attacking the right of somebody, it is avoding to do something.if we have right to force woman to carry fetus,, we have right to force riches to help others.3)that maybe the worst, but worst crime doesnt give us right to force others to do something.4) if fetus is part of woman, it gives me more chance, as I have a right to cut my hairs [which is part of my body], as I have a right to cut fingernail [which is also part of my body], then I also have right to have abortion. I have right to chop of my finger too.arguements: unborn may be human, but not having a right of us to force others is proven and not refuted.bearing child isnt not torture, forcing somebody is a torture.liberty to something does not equal an unlimited license to achieve doesnt give us right to force woman.That parents are bound by law to provide for the needs that is the error of canada, if you have knowledge of my language, I can send you codexes not availabe in english.that is against the freedom of person. we are not requiredEquality of humans has not been refuted Im not against it, why need to refute? all people are equal, we can't force woman.That life is the most fundamental right has not been refuted Im not against it, why need to refute?WIDENING RICHMAN ARGUEMENT:now let me widen it:I offer somebody to drink alcohol as a rich man, he drinks and becomes ill, then you have right to force me to help him as we have right to force woman.ADDITIONAL:since we have no right to force person to save other person:since we cant torture others:since "not helping" others is inside our liberty: I ask govenrment to make abortion legal.character limit