Abortion

Having an abortion is the equivalent of not getting pregnant in the first place". Now, there is are obvious differences between abortion and not getting pregnant. I. There is no child in not getting pregnant, yet there is a child involved with an abortion. II. There is no child death involved in not getting pregnant, yet there is always child death with abortion. It follows that "having an abortion is the equivalent of not getting pregnant in the first place" is contradictory. Hence, my opponent's resolution falls under the logical fallacy classification of false equivalence [1]. Counter-arguments"Note: My firs round was not meant to be taken literally, I just thought it did a fairly good job of summing up my point. A fetus in the first few months is not mentally developed, and to abort it is the equivalent of not getting pregnant in the first place. I am not debating at what point it is developed; it is a gray area. "My opponent has attempted to shift the goalposts here, which is logically fallacious [2]. How this occurred is that opponent originally clarified the resolution to be about a debate on "having an abortion is the equivalen[ce] of not getting pregnant in the first place", but now he/she has lessened this burden of proof by claiming that the resolution had to be taken non-literally. Unfortunately for my opponent, no such further clarification was presented in the first round:"If abortion is murder, so is abstinence. Having an abortion is the equivalent of not getting pregnant in the first place. "Within these two sentences, you will find nothing that dictates this debate requires a non-literal interpretation of the resolution. Therefore, the resolution is not set to be taken non-literally, and thus my interpretation remains legitimate in this debate. "The last two months is not okay to abort, first three months it is. The middle is fairly circumstantial. I am arguing for the right to have an abortion, not whether it is ok to abort a seven month developed child. This post was more of an introductory round, not a main argument. "My opponent concedes the debate with this argument, even if the resolution were to be taken non-literally. You see, my opponent argues that abortion is not a singular colour, in regards to metaphysical ethics/morals (i. e. not being "okay" to abort during the last two months). In other words, it would be okay to abort in the first three months, BUT abortion, according to Pro, is the same as not getting pregnant! What this means is that:1) Abortion is proposed as a singular type2) However, according to my opponent, there is a difference in the morality/ethics of abortion, varying based on the time of incubation (meaning that there are two types of abortion)3) Not getting pregnant is a singular type4) My opponent judged that abortion is (ethically/morally) the equivalent not getting pregnant in the first place, despite there being black-and-white differences (i. e. singular term) in regards to the abortion in questionC) Therefore, my opponent has to keep the morality/ethics of abortion either wrong or "okay" (due to the construction of the resolution requiring abortion to equal not getting pregnant), yet my opponent has argued that the ethics/morality of abortion varies! Thus, abortion is not always the equivalent of not getting pregnant. ConclusionVia a legitimate interpretation of the resolution, I have shown that there are literal differences between abortion and not getting pregnant, thereby negating the resolution. Later, even though I am not required to do so, I showed how my opponent's argument concedes the debate, even if I were to allow the shifting of goalposts to a strictly non-literal interpretation. On both grounds, the resolution is negated. References[1] . http://www.trulyfallacious.com...[2] . http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...