Social Abortions ought to be banned in the US.

i) Basically all my opponent says in response here is that a woman has a choice to recieve a back alley abortion, and must accept responibility for that action. So the Pro is going against the "Pro-Life" point of view and saying that a woman should indeed have a choice. So, in all reality, he has just given me another point in which he agreed. --> lol, not at all. I am saying that since the woman choose to do an illegal act, there will be consequences, either legal or physical. This only furthers the pro-life case on the fact that social abortions happen because they jsut "don't want it". They must take responsibility for their actions and have the baby. Don't twist my wors of "choice" to prove pro-choice agendas. You got it all wrong. ii) Notice that I never said that the government condones an immoral act. (I do not think they should!) We should not debate morals, because everyone's point of view is different. Instead we need to look at reality, and that reality is that if we accept the Pro's theory, we are allowing thousands of women to die! --> You never refuted my definition of "ought", which moves the debate to a moral one. Ought the government condone the action of abortion under moral terms. Obviously not since it degrades the rule of law (contention I), and is an inherently immoral action since you are directly causing death. If you accept my theory you would stop millions of unborn children from being killed. Furthermore, his back alley death point is undermined, however I will make it clearer. E.g. Say I was going out in the middle of the night and I went to a back alley drug dealer. I take cocaine, and i end up dieing. Whose fault is it? The government because they don't condone drugs, or mine because I willingly broke the law and my life was sacrificed for that reason. You can't blame my death on governmental policies. I broke the law, and I payed a price. It's as simple as that. The government shouldn't condone actions that are immoral and unjustified just because others may break the law. I think you can see the ignorance behind my opponents case. iii) My opponent talks about morals; how it is immoral to allow the death of a fetus. But, my opponent is allowing the women to die in the name of the Pro's high moral standings. This just doesn't make sense to me. --> Because as I have proven that abortion is a form of murder, which you didn't refute with warranted arguments. Therefore, murder is immoral. The mother losing her life in a back alley abortion was a willing breaking of the law which comes with a cost. Why should the government condone an action jsut because people will break it? That is a logical fallacy. i) My opponent said I did not refute any of their case and that I dropped it completely. They also said I gave no warrant to my claim. Apparently they didn't read my Observation Three Subpoint A when I said that there are so many definitions floating around the internet that we cannot seriously take one into consideration without taking others into consideration as well... This means that they are not upholding the entire topic, but only a part. This means they lose on the grounds that I have attacked the entire topic and killed it, but also that they have no case to support it. --> I'm sorry, I'm a strict competitive debater, and this attack doesn't fly. My definition stands on the fact that: 1. Saying there are definitions doesn't refute mine. 2. The only way to refute ity is to provide an opposing definition, which my opponent has not done. ii) I do not need any statistics because it is common knowledge that a person can find someone to say anything on the internet. Just because my opponent brings up a definition they think I should be forced to use throughout the debate doesn't mean that it is correct. They want a warrant from me? They don't even provide a warrant on why I should accept this definition. This is yet another reason their case falls, and why they lose on another point. --> no warrant for my definition. Ok....if a scientific community isn't warrant, what do you want? God's definition. We must trust the scientific community in what they claim. Me and my opponents have no basis in Systems biology, etc. Therefore, we must take their word on it. My opponent is correct (He has not warrant to disprove it), it may not be right, however it stands for the round. That's the rules of competitive debate. I.e. LD, Policy, PF, etc. [Voting Issues] 1. My contention stands on the fact that his attacks were unwarranted. My contention I affirms the resolution. 2. My opponents sole point: back alley abortions is a illogical argument on the fact its basis is rooted in illegal activity. For these reasons I urge an affirmation. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.