Abortion

Before I begin I would like to clear up with my opponent what I meant when I said copied and paste. I meant that he most likely wrote out his case in a Word document and then simply forgot to copy and paste it to this site. I was not implying that he plagurized his case.CONTENTION 3: THERE ARE BETTER OPTIONS THAN ABORTIONWhat does my opponent mean by the word 'better'? Does he mean more moral? In that case I refer him to my attack on his first premise. He makes the mistake of presupposing moral facts and not supporting those presuppositions with evidence.Murder is WrongI asked what evidence my opponent had for his premise that murdering a human was wrong and he unfortunately has not brought any evidence to back up his assumption. He simply asked questions which he believed would make my contention that murder is not immoral seem ridiculous. But again I will ask, what is immoral about the act of murdering an innocent human being? My opponent then does try to convince me that murder is wrong by bringing a few reasons. I will deal with them below.1) It is against the will of the person being murderedI agree that in the case of abortion, the abortion is performed against the will of the fetus. But why is that wrong? How does my opponent jump from a descriptive statement( abortion does not allow the fetus to defend itself) to a prescriptive statement( one ought not abort a fetus)? It seems as though he is making an argument from "common moral-sense" where he simply assumes that people agree with him on the existence of common sense morality. I will argue that I need not accept his common sense morality until he has brought reason or evdence to support it.2) Murder is wrong because the right to life is a fundemental right.Normally this argument would hold weight if my opponent and I were engaged in a policy debate. If we were debating on whether the U.S. specifically should grant a woman the right to have an abortion, referring to the right to life laid out in the Constitution would be a strong point. But my opponent misunderstands the nature of this debate. This is not a policy debate but more along the lines of a Lincoln-Douglas debate where my opponent and I are debating the morality or immorality of an action, abortion specifically. So the Constitution is really irrelevant in this debate unless it brings some sort of philosophical justification for why every human has a fundamental "right" to life. So my opponent again presupposes the existence of "fundamental rights" and so erranously applies them to humans and fetus' without the slightest evidence of their existence.Animals and MurderIf my opponent feels that this point is irrelevant to this debate than I will not pursue the point further. I was merely trying to understand why my opponent only included the murder of humans in his first premise. I figured that if I tried to understand his motivations for that specific point, I would be able to understand his argument for why murdering a human is wrong and better refute it.And yes, I have accepted my opponent's logical syllogism for the immorality of abortion as structually sound. If all of it's premises are true than I do not dispute the conclusion. However the 1st premise, on which his entire argument is rested has not been properly upheld by reason or evidence. I therefore urge a Con vote.