a pregnant woman shouldnt always have the right to an abortion

R1) LifeThis was not addressed at all. My adversary fails to show that the bad is not just a human but alive. She states that the baby inside the womb is no different than the baby outside of the womb. This if falseThe baby gains different characteristics week by week and even more after its born [1]. My adversary would have needed to show that the baby is in fact a human and not a life. Saying it shares the same characteristics in the womb as when its born is false so we can dismiss this statement. R2) Argument from defenseShe fails to address the issue at hand[P1] A baby is taking nutrients from the mother[P2] Removal of nutrients and be conceived as harm[C] Since this is considered harm, the mother has the right to abort the baby under US laws. She says the mother accepts the health risks when she is getting pregnant. That still does not negate the fact the baby is harming the mother. If you agree to let someone punch you in the face for 9 months, and then decide you want them to stop. At that point if they chose not to stop punching you for 9 months. You are justified to use psychical violence and possibly death to prevent the harm that is coming to you under US law. R3) MoralityPro argues that morality is generally considered wrong, but that does not mean it is morally wrong. It means it is morally wrong the people that believe this. Pro would have to show that morality is objectively wrong, because if you can justify murder in any possible country, you can justify murder in the US. Therefore the principle behind the contention stands. R4) Util/ population controlAs she states she would have to properly address the issues above to defeat this, and she has failed to do so properly. This argument stands. R5) Right a woman has to her own bodyDroppedConclusionThe resolution is essentially a mother should have the right to abortion in every specific circumstance. I have shown this in a majority of waysMy adversary is claiming that by having an abortion in every possible situation you are essentially committing murder but she has failed to distinguish that a fetus is a human life and not just life or the potential of human life. If you are killing the potential of life or something that is not a human life, you are not committing murder therefore she fails to address this point. She has not addressed he argument of self defense, nor bothered to refute that a fetus is causing harm to the mother. She actually agrees in a sense that the fetus is causing harm which clarifies my stance, by saying the mother agrees to the harm. As I have this argument does not stand. She also has failed to address that even if we consider the baby a human life (which she has failed to show that it is ) she would then have to show murder is wrong. She has not done soDue to this argument standing my util and women rights to her own body arguments also stand. The resolution is negated and I affirm that a mother should always have the right to an abortion. To defeat this syllogism and initial point she would have to show that taking nutrients is not considered harm. She fails to do this so this argument (however trollish it is) stands. [1] http://www.babycenter.com...