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

Now since this is my final word in this debate, and also the last word; I will use this speech as follows 1. Rebuttals 2. Extensions 3. Closing Arguments So with that, let's look to the Pro side of the debate Pro- First on the framework; My opponent accepts the burden of proof, but claims that it is abusive to say they must win all six of their points to win this debate. This simply isn't true, it is completely fair. If my opponent cannot prove the contentions they've presented not only warrant removing all restrictions on an already controversial topic, but also have no negative backlash, then it is not only morally wrong to change the status quo but it is Unjust. Secondly, there was nothing agreed on before the debate. If my opponent didn't want to defend so many arguments, he should not have presented so many arguments. This is a technique known as "squirrel killing" and by looking to such a thing we lose all sense of having a debate, but instead weighing the round on technicalities. So no; I have warranted my opponent needing to win all six points in my prior speech (which my opponent never touches on) and I have further clarified it here. Of course it will all come down to the voter's thoughts on which of us is correct, but all the same I can still will more than 50% of the arguments 1. Now my opponent claims that it is these legal restrictions on abortions that lead to such unfortunate events such as Partial Birth abortions, and Back alley abortions. But what they do not understand, is it is these restrictions that make such atrocities not happen in the first place. If we where to remove all restrictions on abortion as my opponent contends we should, such horrible things would become common-place. As for my opponent's claim that partial birth abortion is rarely necessary, it is actually never "necessary" so my opponent's claims here are completely baseless. He also provides you with not proof on this refutation. 2. My opponent never addresses my arguments here, but instead opts to simply extend their own points. His "scientific" refutation also has not evidence to support his claim. He instead uses the same kind emotional that he demonizes me for using. As for the argument of whether or not a fetus is an unborn baby, or a nonviable fetus; First that is an entirely different debate for another time. I choose to refer to the baby as what I believe it is, which is completely fair in terms of the stance I am advocating. Second, My opponent never warrants that it is just a "nonviable fetus" so this argument is two-fold not applicable. 3. This claim is so wrong on so many levels. First extend my prior argument as my opponent hardly touched on it. Second, my opponent makes the statement "Why should you or anyone else have the right to tell another woman what she can or cannot do with her own boy? !" he therefore recognizes that the fetus is a human and along with his later assertions that the father has joint rights to only the child makes this refutation actually in sync with the Con line of logic here. Second, I did not answer the abuse issue because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. and on side note, I want to point out a bit of hypocrisy here from my opponent. He is again using these emotionally based arguments the demonized himself in his last refutation. 4. My opponent does not cover my argument, but simply dismisses it as being irrelevant. This is both extremely abusive to me, but is incredibly contradictory with the basis of my opponent's advocation to remove all restrictions on abortion. Also, my opponent never warrants why mental development is irrelevant, so my argument here is still relevant and this point is irrefutably Con 5. My opponent never tells you why my response here doesn't have anything to do with what he said. Accepting this argument is completely unfair to me. My character limit makes it impossible for me to not only copy/paste my prior arguments and expand on them, but it would also be irrelevant since is the last round and my opponent could not argue it back. 6. I offer the same refutation as I did on point 5. My opponent never tells us why my arguments don't have anything to do with the topic at hand. It's abusive and unfair to make such a vague claim as I don't even know what I supposedly did wrong. Obviously if my arguments had nothing to do with this debate, I would not waste mine, or my opponents typing it up. Now as for the Con side, my opponent does not touch the three points I offer, so they also go to the Con. Now for my closing statements; My opponent advocates that this debate is strictly that concerning "personal health" but it goes far beyond that. You see it comes down to personal health, family health, mental health, religious faith, and so much more. But not only that, my opponent consistently offers these double-minded claims on the topic, which really don't have anything to do with personal health, but have to do with rights, and what is just. My opponent utterly fails to prove why we should make such a drastic claim to the status quo, and then demonizes me for opposing his opinions therefore I urge you all, vote Con in this debate simply because my opponent gives you no reason to vote for them. Thank you all :3