Resolved: Abortion should be Illegal (Except in life threatening cases)

I'll start off with rebuttals from round 2. First off, the link my opponent provided gives no real arguments against abortion except for one, that the legality of abortion was decided by 7 men who weren't elected officials. But the video forgets to mention that it was a supreme court decision, and there was in fact a vote. The court ruled 7-2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. [Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 12] The state asserted that the gov't had two competing interests, protection the moter's health, and protecting the potentiality of human life. The court states that during the first trimester, when the procedure is more safe that childbirth, the decision to abort is left to the mother and her physician. And the state can only intervene prior to fetal viability only to protect the health of the mother. But the one big thing that my opponent fails to mention in the "is a fetus a person" argument, is how this means abortion is wrong. A woman could assert the right to control her body even if the fetus is a person. The fetus itself has no legal claim to use the woman's body. I ask my opponent to provide evidence that the "right to live" supersedes the "right to have control over one's body." When a woman is pregnant, her body is not simply a container for the fetus. Every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. John Locke, "The Second Treatise On Civil Government" Concerning the second contention I'd like to point out to my opponent that his source is extremely unreliable, because it's just a video from a biased website, and it doesn't provide any sources to where it obtains "it's facts." Also, every time my opponent gives a different source, it's just a link to the same video that they provided in earlier links. For this entire contention, my opponent bases their arguments on the presumption that killing is wrong because it deprives someone of "a future like ours." My opponent provides no sources for this, except the same video which has been referenced 3 times at this point. But there is a major law in this, because my opponent provides no real framework as to why depriving someone "a future like ours" is a crime, and how it provides a legal base to make abortion illegal. Then my opponent makes the absurd comparison between abortion to the Holocaust, and American slavery. There is obvious biological proof that African-Americans are in fact people, but there is no real evidence that a fetus is a real person, my opponent claims there is, but provides no credible source. Now, moving on to rebuttals concerning my opponents arguments from Round 3."The costs are irrelevant to this debate, as money does not justify killing. Rape is only about 1% of all pregnancies, so this exception cannot dictate the norm. However, I will still address this point. I agree that rape is a heinous crime. However, creating more victims by killing an innocent is not the right answer. Consider a case in which a rape victim gives birth to a son, and after 5 years the mother sees the boy and decides he reminds her too much of the rapist, and she kills him. This is not justified, and neither is abortion."My opponent states that rape only accounts for 1% of all pregnancies, but provides no sources from where they found this information. There is an estimated 32,101 pregnancies resulting from rape each year. My opponent states that this "small" number shouldn't dictate the norm. But, this specific argument is that abortion should be legal if the pregnancy was a result of rape. And 32,101 women having children they want isn't likely going to end well for the child, or the family that has to care for it. My opponent also took the hypothetical case straight from abort73.com, which is the only source they have used up to this point. But my opponent can't possibly believe that a fetus is the same thing as a 5 year old child. A fetus is still dependant on the mother's body for life, and also has no independent will. There is a huge difference between abortion, and killing a 5 year old child.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...OK, the fetus is not completely independent at this point. But it is still very much an ALIVE HUMAN, as I proved with the facts that the fetus is part of Homo Sapiens, the species of humanity. Just because it is dependent does not make it any less human. People reliant on life support are not inhuman. Newborns are helpless, but they are human. A fetus is dependent, but is still human.My opponent actually hasn't provided any facts or sources that the fetus is a human. But this statement here is nonsense. A fetus being a part of the subspecies Homo Sapiens Sapiens isn't relevant AT ALL to this debate. Homo Sapiens is just the taxonomy of the human species. By stating that a "fetus is a part of homo sapiens," my opponent is just stating that a fetus is human, but using different words, and providing no real facts. The difference between a newborn is that it can live [for a certain amount of time] seperate from the mother, and it doesn't have to be attached to the mother 24/7. So, in conclusion, my opponent has not proved that a fetus is a human.Unsafe AbortionsThis is untrue."One need only look at the frequency of abortion since it was first legalized to see that the legality of abortion plays a huge role in establishing a woman's willingness to choose abortion.My opponent goes on to state how the amount of abortions went up after abortion was legalized. But my opponent fails to connect this to unsafe abortions. There is no denying that the amount of unsafe abortions is decreased in countries where legal and safe abortions are an option. Take the amount of unsafe abortions yearly in the US prior to the legalization of abortion [estimates range from 200,000 to 1.2 million.] However the amount of unsafe abortions in North America is significantly lower than the rest of the world.http://www.guttmacher.org... It is much harder to get an abortion in places such as Latin America or Africa, and the abortion laws there are much stricter compared to those in North America. And the percentage of unsafe abortions is significantly higher, in Latin America 95% of the total being unsafe abortions, 97%in Africa, and in North America, less than 0.5%.Also, as my opponent suggests that abortion would result in more lives saved, but this is wrong. Safe abortions reduce the risk of death caused by abortion to around 0.6%. My opponent also talks about breast cancer, but this is irrelevant, as it's the mothers choice to have an abortion, so she would understand the risks before undertaking the procedure. Also, concerning my opponents "constitutive being argument." My opponent provides no sources as to whether or not any of it should actually be taken seriously by the law. My opponent states "you are the same individual living being as the fetus from which you developed." But my opponent cannot deny that a human being is much different than a fetus, the difference being that a human being can live completely independent of the mother's body, whereas the fetus cannot.In their rebuttals, my opponent ignores the following arguments I presented in round 2 Right to Privacy A Woman's Right to Control Over Her Own Body My opponent has completely ignored these arguments in their rebuttal. That is the end of my Round 3 submission.