Bullish's position on abortion (restarted)

Thanks to my opponent for responding.==========I agree with my opponent’s paragraph on what rights women should have. As I explained in R1, I believe that rights are important in maintaining the social integrity that allows a favorable environment for gaining utility. My opponent states that abortion must involve killing the fetus and sites the Merriam-Webster dictionary. He did not, however, include the actual definition. The “full” definition states that abortion is “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” [http://www.merriam-webster.com... ] As we can see, it’s the termination of pregnancy, not the actual killing. The phrase “termination of a pregnancy… closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus” should signal that at least in some cases, the fetus dies after the mother removes her life support. The fact that killing the baby is included in the definition is only a testament to the commonality of the occurrence. We observe the definition of a sycamore: “a tree of the eastern and central U.S. that has light-brown bark that peels off in thin flakes.” [http://www.merriam-webster.com... ]Clearly, a sycamore growing in Great Britain will still be classified as a sycamore, just as an abortion without the death of the fetus is still an abortion. This is however, irrelevant unless we wish to place all our weight on rights, which I’m certain some people do. I do not believe that everything should be placed on rights, and I explained practically why not. Con rebuts the violinist example by stating that it is equating action with inaction. That is not true. Unplugging yourself is an action. Con then states that abortion is not successful unless the fetus dies, but I showed why this is not true in the definitions paragraph. My opponent’s third rebuttal states that sex implicitly obligates a woman to not abort. This is an unsubstantiated arbitration. One does not accept responsibility by doing something that is unrelated. One accepts responsibility when one agrees to accept responsibility. For example, I could decree from now on that any person who drinks water must not collect their pay check next month; I could similarly argue that any person not responsible enough to obey this decree is unfit to drink water. It is irrational.My opponent does not define “moral rights” and provides no grounds on which to assert why “natural rights,” which are themselves arbitrarily defined by a few men some centuries ago, must be obeyed at all times. Only (negative) rights are relative to the discussion, whose only variance is how much we care about them. I acknowledge that rights we care more about should be treasured more closely, and rights we care less about sacrificed for the greater rights if necessary. Therefore, the rights of the young and ignorant are justifiably violatable. My opponent asks me why it is acceptable to kill persons who are burdens on society. That is a loaded question, as I did not assert it is acceptable. I asserted that it is acceptable to not grant them rights, because it is logical to assume that rights only apply to those who care about them (not an abstract “potential” to care about them). The counter balance is if someone else who is intelligent cared about the inepts’ rights for them; brutally put, this is called property ownership; having custody of a child or otherwise inept people is a cross between owning the person and giving them rights. Killing them or otherwise containing them would cost resources. Even if we kill them, involuntary euthanasia of an Alzheimer’s sufferer arguably brings about more utility than having that person forget that putting your hands in a bender is dangerous. However, if enough people fear that involuntary euthanasia will slide down the slippery slope one day to themselves, it is reasonable to ban it. The same is not true with abortion. There are no slippery slope arguments for why abortion would lead to legalizing murdering a pro-life person. The reason I do not think society should actively seek out the “burdens” is because of the energy involved in seeking them, which are in general much better spent doing actually useful things. My opponent asks this because he does not see how abortion is acceptable if the fetus is known to be a burden on society. I answer that because it is already known that the fetus will very likely to be a burden on society. Self-defense uses the same logic, except on a much more short-sighted scale. The money and utility spent by a mother on raising a disabled child she does not wish to raise has an opportunity cost on those who do wish to raise a child.Abortion: killing fetus to save resources; self-defense: killing person to save life. My opponent uses an unfitting analogy by comparing the result of abortion as solely the death of the fetus. No rational person kills babies for the sake of killing babies. My opponent appears to agree that the mother gains utility even though he said I did not support it. He uses the word “alleviate” to describe a mother who has an abortion. Alleviate is a word associated with positive utility. It appears that my opponent rejects my utilitarian views, which permits abortion. I explained my utilitarian views in R1, and I welcome him to rebut it here or in another debate (although I may not do another debate in a long time). My examples are indeed at times unrealistic. But I use them as relevant reducto absurdio arguments to help better understand my arguments. They should not be taken literally. I say that abortion should not be illegal at any stage, because the mother is the sole person who understands rights who is affected at any time before birth. This is different in other cases such as drinking or driving. The last inquiry should have been addressed in the argument body.==========To Con.