The U.S. should eliminate all restictions on a woman's right to an abortion.

I know I said I was going to post a Video response, but I'm far too tired to speak eloquently enough to warrant that being fair to either myself or my opponent. so at least for this round, My response will be written. Now for maximum clarity, I will frame the round a bit, then I will be going Pro, then Con and finishing up with an argument summary Frame- I simply want to point out here that the Burden of proof is on the Pro, as they are advocating a change to the current state of events. So in order to win they must warrant their stance beyond the shadow of a doubt. Meaning they must over-overwhelmingly win the clash first off, and also win all six points they presented in their constructive. so now, let's cover the Pro stance Pro- Frame: My opponent presents us the presidency case of Roe V.S. Wade. However they never actually expand on the decision made in this case, so until they do so it can have no effect in this round, simple because we cannot weigh it in this round. Accordingly this Frame-work falls 1. I suppose then my opponent contends we should allow something like say, partial birth abortion, Home abortion, or even the infamous Back alley abortion? Point being there are restrictions. 2. Plain and simple, my opponent advocates ignorance here. Pregnancy is an emotionally and physically stressful time for women, and they deserve to know about the procedure before under-going it. If we feel the need to present information to persons want to drive a vehicle, then we sincerely need this to be reciprocal for some-one who wishes to terminate and kill their unborn child. 3. Now to say that an abortion is strictly a "personal" decision is ridiculous. The father helped to create the child, therefore they have joint rights to the child. Therefore by the father/spouse not being notified there will be expansive mental, and emotional damage being payed to an undeserving recipient. Not to mention that when a couple is married it is a commitment to one another. The woman's spouse will likely already have access to her medical information; so something like this is completely deceptive. 4. So let's assume my opponent means a minor here. The human brain is not fully developed until the age of 21;not only that but until this age of 21 children are still legally bound to their parents, therefore they have a legal right to this information. So let's talk about mental development; Until the age of about 21 the human brain has yet to become fully developed in the area of critical thinking. With-out proper counseling, this could very well be a decision they regret for the rest of their lives. 5. Again pregnancy is a stressful time for women; they deserve time to think on such a huge decision; I also want to extend my arguments on point 2 here. 6. This is a restriction all the same, and violates the Burden of proof my opponent has by simply framing the topic the way he did. I win. Con- For now I will just present the tags and expand on them as later. The bulk of their content is in my attacks on the Pro case as it is already, and the topic does not give me a burden to provide an alternative, but simply to disprove the Pro. This is simply for my opponent's benefit. 1. Moral Decay- 2. Emotional Backlash- 3. Physical damage to the mother- Argument summary- It's too early in the debate for me to summarize just yet, especially since my opponent has not had an opportunity to respond to my constructive arguments. But if anything We need to look to my opponent's contradiction in his sixth point.