Abortion should be a crime when the life of the mother is not in danger.

First, my opponent claims I contradict myself, that my argument denies women the right to an abortion. This is incorrect. There are two problems, one Abortion is not a right. Abortion is the killing of an individual who has rights, but is just not born yet. A person does not have a right to kill other people and never will. Second, even if there was a right to an abortion, the right to life of the individual that the fetus will become trumps the mother's right to an abortion. For this debate, the mother's life is not in danger. Reaffirming my contentions: For my first contention he invokes the Constitution, saying fetuses are not given rights by the Constitution. First, rights don't come from the Constitution, they come from nature, and are recorded in the Constitution, an incomplete document, and second, I am arguing you are denying the hypothetical person its rights, as a fetus has no rights. He also says there is no absolute way to determine if a fetus will have rights, but in doing this he ignores completely my scenario with men in bushes. Although later on he claims this is an exaggeration, he gives no warrant. I will show how similar the situations are anyways. First, in this scenario, there is only a two-thirds probability that by shooting the bush you would infringe on rights, but that is not okay. If performed in real life, you would be arrested for murder if the bush contained a man. Abortion has parallels to this. When one aborts early on, there is only a two-thirds probability that she is infringing on the rights of that future human. For my second contention, he claims I contradict myself, which I don't, I have always argued that the infringement is on the rights of the future individual, not the fetus. Other than this, he does not refute my claim. He does however, in a later contention claim that the individual will not definitely have rights, therefore should not be treated as such. This is completely false. If I shoot into a bush knowing that there is a strong probability that that bush has a man, with rights, I might as well be infringing on rights, as I have shown a willingness to commit murder if that bush has a man. Abortion is the same. For my third contention he claims that the labor is unsafe, it could lead to lifelong problems. First, if the woman's life is in danger, they can abort. Second, very. very few labors end in complications, this is not a cause to most likely take a life. Moving onto my opponent's contentions, he claims that women should have a choice. He uses the example of an unwanted pregnancy, this fits in perfectly with my third contention. His second example is of a genetically mutated fetus. It is not the right of the woman to play god, and decide that handicapped individuals are too much to take care of, a woman has no more right than I do to determine if that fetus will live its life or die. Again, there's the claim that my bush scenario is exaggerated, which is completely false as I demonstrated. His second contention claims that fetuses don't have rights, and may never have them, again, there is a possibility that that bush is empty, but shooting it would be wrong. Finally, my opponent claims that we don't know who to punish. The anwer is clear, the doctor giving the illegal abortion, as well as the mother who willingly gets the abortion.' Why vote PRO? 1. The probable rights of the individual take precedence over the right of a woman t control her body. 2. There is a very strong probability that in abortion, one infringes upon rights. 3.I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments and upheld my own.