abortion

In his opening statement he states, "Who ever[sp] got an abortion or is for abortion should deserve to get killed the same way they kill the poor inocennt[sp] babies I have no regert[sp] saying what I just said. " Since he didn't provide a clear resolution, I decided to argue against that by claiming that abortion should be allowed in some cases, and that pro-choice supporters should not be killed. My opponent then shifted the goal posts in round 2 and said that he is with abortion in "some major cases. " Doesn't that contradict his sentence in the opening statement which says, "Who ever got an abortion or is for abortion should deserve to get killed. .. ?" In addition to this, it seems that he willingly ignored the part about getting pro-choice supporters killed in this round. Furthermore, my opponent says in the second round, "For all you people who are not clear I am debating that it[Abortion] should not be used so much as it is. " Note that this resolution was neither mentioned in the title or the opening statement. My opponent seems to think that he can list what he is arguing in the second round, after his opponent accepted the debate based on the opening statement. Even if my opponent believes that abortion should be allowed only in some major cases, there is still room for argument on whether abortion should be allowed in the early stages of pregnancy. I'm assuming he is against that, because that represents the majority of abortion cases[1]. A- Abortion should be allowed in the early stages of pregnancyAborting a fertilized egg is not the equivalent of killing a child, similarly to how breaking an egg is not the equivalent of killing a chicken. I'm with allowing the mother to perform abortion as long as the fetus is not conscious yet and the case satisfies one of those conditions:A1- RapeIt doesn't make sense for a mother to raise the child of her rapist. She has the choice to keep it, but also she must have the choice to abort it when it still is a fertilized egg. A2- Not ready for motherhoodIf a girl had sex, this doesn't necessarily mean she is mature enough to raise kids. Having sex is a lot easier than taking care of a baby, and the girl could have performed unsafe sex because of her immaturity to begin withA3- Not enough moneyIf the baby is going to starve or suffer from malnutrition because of dire economic conditions, then I don't see why the mother should keep the fertilized egg. A4- Life conditionsIf the mother or the baby are going to be killed because of traditional customs that condemn premarital sex in certain cultures and societies, then it is better for the mother to abort the fertilized egg and save herself and her future child from a horrific death. B- Refutation of my opponent:My opponent's argument is simply anecdotal evidence that supports his position. B1- Contention 1: ". .. but she stuck by her baby and let it pass away when it was ready to she wanted god to take it on his time not at a scheduled time so I feel it shouldn't be a popular as it is. .. "Not everyone believes in God and has that particular belief. As his sister's friend chose to follow her belief, why can't others choose to follow their beliefs? To make this argument, my opponent has to prove that God exists, and not just that, but that this particular God wants fetuses to have a natural death. B2- Contention 2: " I'm not to mature for a baby well you were old enough to have sex. .. "Being old enough to have sex doesn't entail being ready for motherhood. This is a non-sequitur logical fallacy which I dealt with above in A2. In summary, my opponent has failed to explain clearly what he is arguing against and shifted goal posts in Round 2. I tried to understand his position which changed in Round 2, and argued against it by saying that abortion should not just be allowed in some major situations, but also in the early stages of pregnancy under certain conditions I listed. [1] cdc. gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1. htm