Bullish's position on abortion (restarted)

I'm not going to get too technical with this debate and I won't go too in-depth. Therefore, I'll be doing the same thing as my opponent, just arguing in a semi-formal, prose manner. Firstly, my opponent opens by saying that a woman has the right to do what she wishes with her body. If this is taken in the most literal sense, then my opponent is flat out wrong. After all, I don't think that my opponent would think that a woman should be allowed to hurt, harm, or kill someone without moral justification even if she is exercising her bodily autonomy to do so. If my opponent agrees that some restrictions should be set forth, then we can reject this claim. However, for the sake of colloquial leniency I am just going to assume that my opponent means that a woman should be allowed to control who uses her body to survive, how long someone uses her body to survive, and when someone uses her body to survive. If this is not what my opponent means and he actually means that a woman should literally be allowed to do anything they want with her body without restrictions, then I understand, but he hasn't defended this statement. So, I invite him to do so in the next round. Next, my opponent says that abortion doesn't kill the baby, but the definition I provided contradicts this. My intention is not to play semantics, but rather it is to show that abortion does kill the fetus, by definition. The definition of abortion is, "a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus. " [. http://www.merriam-webster.com.........] Yes, the main goal of an abortion is ultimately to end the pregnancy, but the fetus' death is the only way to do this. So, unless the woman's right to not be pregnant makes it permissible to kill the fetus, then we have no reason to accept this. The fetus is the sole object of an abortion. After all, an abortion isn't successful unless it results in the death of the fetus [. http://www.public.iastate.edu......]. So, from all of this, we can conclude that abortion is intrinsically geared towards ending the fetus' life in order to end the pregnancy. My opponent then cites the "violinist example" from bsh1's debate against donald. keller. I completely agree that it is morally permissible to unplug yourself from the violinist you've been forcibly attached to. But, I can still accept the example as sound and still be skeptical of abortion's morally permissibility. In order to stay true to the nature of this debate's prose, semi-formal style I will briefly cover some of my criticisms the violinist argument rather than going into a long, extrapolated rebuttal. My first criticism is that the violinist analogy equates action with inaction. In abortion, the act, in and of itself, is meant to kill the fetus so that the pregnancy ends. Therefore, we should affirm that abortion is the direct and active killing of the fetus. After all, abortion isn't successful unless the fetus dies and the definition of abortion tells us that death of the fetus must occur so that it even is an abortion. Now, when you unplug yourself from the violinist you aren't actively and directly killing them, you are passively allowing them to die. You are not killing them, the ailment they suffer from is. Therefore, I think that it is a false comparison in this regard. My second objection, briefly, is that you are not responsible for the violinist you are attached to. In pregnancy, you are responsible for the fetus living off of you. Excluding non-consensual sexual intercourse (rape), the man and the woman consensually and knowingly engaged in a sexual act that they knew would result in a new human organism being created. The fact that they aren't responsible enough to accept the consequences of their actions (a new organism coming into existence), then we have no reason to view my opponent's defense of his position as acceptable. My opponent next states that young people don't have rights in this country until they turn 18. However, his argument fails because he only cites legal rights. .. . which are privileges that people gain once they turn a certain age. This includes being able to drive, vote, drink, etc. My opponent never covers moral rights. Rights granted to us because we are human persons. These include the right-to-life, the right of bodily autonomy, the freedom of speech, the right to privacy, etc. To deny anyone these fundamental moral rights because of their age just seems like raging ageism to me and I'm not convinced that age and the ability to make rational decisions are morally relevant in determining whether or not one deserves rights. Next, my opponent cites example of when abortion would be good. I agree with the first two examples. Killing the fetus when the mother's life is in danger seems like self-defense and would therefore be acceptable. As for cases of rape, the violinist example is a better defense of abortion in this case because two people didn't engage in voluntary sexual intercourse and would therefore not be jointly responsible for the fetus or violinist they are attached to. Now, my opponent cites an example where the fetus will be paralyzed, in constant pain, and mentally retarted. While the likelihood of all these things occuring in one case is miniscule, I will admit to its possibility. I also admit that they may be a burden on society, but I don't see how this makes abortion acceptable. After all, I don't see how it would be acceptable to kill a born person who suffers from the same thing as the fetus in your example simply because they are a burden on society. Why is it acceptable to kill someone because they are/will be a burden on society? My opponent says that self-defense is honorable, but why not abortion? Well, because killing in self-defense is different from abortion, in most cases. In abortion, the goal is to end the pregnancy by killing the fetus. The goal of killing in self-defense is to end someone else's life so as to protect your own. I don't see how the are analogous so that abortion could be seen as acceptable. My opponent then asserts that abortion is the most practical thing to do, but doesn't defend this. He says that when a woman is forced to give birth, the she loses utility, but doesn't actually touch on how the mother losing utility because of her actions means she can abort to alleviate herself of her responsibility. He also says that the baby doesn't have utility, but again doesn't argue how this makes abortion acceptable or morally permissible. My opponent continues by citing an example of a baby that has a debilitating disease that renders him unable to feel happiness. While I doubt whether or not this example is realistic, I think that it wouldn't be so common and this would be one of the times where abortion may be acceptable. But, I'm not arguing that abortion isn't practical, moral, or acceptable in any situation. This should be obvious from what I've said thus far. My opponent says that abortion shouldn't be illegal at any stage. I invite him to defend this statement. My opponent then says that if one doesn't have the capacity to ask for rights, then they don't deserve rights. I'm extremely skeptical of this. Do tell, Pro. Thanks to Bullish for those intriguing and engaging opening arguments. I look forward to his response.