Abortion should be illegal

UN definition of torture applies to abortion:Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever"[5] may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.[6] Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies. http://bit.ly...forcements said by PRO:1)Income tax: firstly, when we pay this, we are not forced to help others, we are asked to pay the bill/e.t.c.that is not forcing, we are asked to pay tax but we are not forced when we pay tax, that is a result of agreement, if you dont want to pay, you will not work/manage your business. it is your choice. when you start business or work, you make a covenant between government, that is your choice, government is not forcing. is it comparable with pregnancy&abortion? no. pregnancy is not provision of something you took from government, hence government cant force us for pregnancy.not forcing. Has no even similarity with abortion. 2) conscription: when we are taken into army, that is not forcement, that is our debt. that is our debt&duty. a provision for the services of government, government serves you because you are its citizien and as a debt it. when you accept the citizienship of that country you accept that condition, that is agreement, not force. but pregnancy is not like that, pregnancy is not provision of something taken from government. to compare this with forcing for pregnancy: pregnancy needs to be provision of something taken from government, provision of service of government, but is pregnancy provision of something taken from governmetn? in so many countries you are free to do it: you can see it here: http://bit.ly...and in so many countries you can deny it by delivering your citizienship. for exaple: the country I came from.3) he shows Canada's codex, in my country we are free to do it, we have right not to supply children. our codex is not available even electronically&online, but I can send you word file.so, forcing person to supply for his child is against hsi liberty, if it is compulsory in canada, it is free in my country.about parent: person who is a father or mother : a person who has a child http://bit.ly...person is not parent till chat child comes into the world.PRO missquoted:By extending this faulty argument, since we still have murders, thefts and rapes we should not have laws against these items, because those laws will be broken. This is a fallacious argument.I didnt use such logic, in fact, what PRO deduced is a fallacy. what I meant is:even if government makes laws against tradition which says girl needs to be killed, it does not prevent girl from being killed due to her pregnancy. what I argued is: girl rescues herself from being killed by having abortion. she may be killed even if it is banned, I didnt argue we shouldnt have laws, I argued: it doesnt protect girl. having laws which prohibit killing doesnt guarantee the security of the girl.in order to make abortion illegal in this case, government needs to save girl, laws cant save girl. we can not let girl be killed for another one.rich man:it was about alcohol, but PRO added red-herrings by adding harmfull drinks, we were not talking about such poisons or e.t.c the arguement is about an alcohol, in such cases as we have no right to force the rich, then it is irrational to force woman for pregnancy. in alcoholic case:it is the same thing with abortion, both help to other person, if both doesnt help, it will result with death, in order to make abortion illegal, we need right to force rich to help the poor. if we can force woman for pregnancy, then government needs to give us right to force rich people to help the poor. he quoted about duty to rescue, from the source he gave:In the common law of most anglosphere countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another.Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril. http://bit.ly...what we can see is: we have no duty to rescue others. PART WRITTEN WITH BOLD is enough to refute.if government doesnt force the rich to help the poor, then we cant force woman to help the fetus.in the same way, when I(richman) give you alcohol, in case you become ill when you drink, I am not forced to help you. that rule doesnt work here. A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situationhas no relation with pregnancy, in order this to have relation with abortion, both pregnancy&abortion needs to be hazardious situation.fianl arguements:the child has a right to be protected=>red-herring, are we against this? do we assert: children have no right for this? no. what we assert: we have right not to help the child.it is impossible for the child and thus the race to survive otherwise.being impossibel for them doesnt give us right to attack the liberty of somebody.one cannot have a right that is fundamentally harmful to the species if everyone enforces this right.one can that right, even driving is harmfull to the atmosphere which cause harm to the whole world, as we have right for driving, we can say taht we have such right.2)everyone doesnt enforce it, for example: me and people like me.rights must logically be a fundamentally to the good of the speciesrights not have to be to the good of species, drinking alcohol is my right but it is not good of species, saying rights must logically be a fundamentally to the good of the species in nature is fallacy. no need to write about it more.right to abortion can be valid, that is our liberty.making it illegal can not be be valid as it actively works against the freedom of us.responding concluding arguements:unborn may be human being, all humans may have equal right, we arent against these.we have right not to help others, so we have right not to help to the fetus.parents have no any kind of obligation to help to the child, that is against our liberty, in my country we are free to do it.and forcing parents to supply children is against the liberty of people.the right to enforce one’s liberties at the expense of an innocent 2nd party’s life is both fundamentally immoral, and a greater abuse of the 2nd party’s fundamental rights than that of the 1st party’s rights.rich people are free to help to the poor, so do the women.by this logic, to defendrich man's liberty not to help others is immoral.and one may ask, what is morale? it is a subjective perspective, for PRO it may be immoral,, for me it is not immoral, for so many people having sex without getting married is immoral for so many it is moral. immorality and morality has no standard thing, saying it is immoral is pointless, I think.making abortion illegal is against our liberty.since we have right not to help others even if they are about to die, act of abortion is our right. for such reasons, abortion is 100% true in any case.as such, not only prohibitinhg abortion can not be something logical, it has also been shown that it is our right. ABORTION SHOULD BE LEAGL.making abortion illegal is against our liberty, because:*we have right not to help others.=>forcing women to carry fetus is against her right not to help others.*women are not container or machine for fetus.>forcing women to carry it is like seeing her as a container.*body is our body and we can use it as we wish>>not allowing women to send fetus out of her body is against her right to use her body freely.additional:PRO sometimes argued that abortion is harmfull to the species, even if we think in that way, when we look at statistics I presented in round2, making abortion illegal is bigger harm to the world. it increases corruption and crime rates. 6 conditions:out of that 6 conditions, against just one contion we have shown rational arguement.I have written so much things, taht is enough, it made me tired. I conclude:CONSIDERING SUCH REASONS, ABORTION SHOULD BE LEGAL.