is abortion ok

Constitutionality It is important to note that there is no right to an abortion anywhere in the constitution, but there is an explicit right to life which can not be deprived without due process of law. Concluding, there is a right to life which must be protected.2. MurderMy opponents' statements contain facts, but there was also incorrect information too. That wrong information was pointed out, and was dismissed as an opinion. 3. The BibleThen this point should not have any influence on the winner of this debate.4. AdoptionThat is all stuff that COULD happen, but being adopted COULD benefit them by helping others find foster parents such as the case with Dave Thomas [1] the founder of Wendy's. "life offers no guarantees but abortion offers no chances". 5. Biological LifeMy opponents' statements contain scientific evidence, but there was also incorrect information too. That wrong information was pointed out, and was never defended. The term zygote is also a reference to age like using the term toddler. To say you keep calling it a toddler not human, so a toddler isn't human, is a false way of thinking. Every time I mention zygote or fetus I am talking about Human zygotes and human fetuses.6. Adult Stem CellsIt is true I did not rebuttal this un-sourced point, and it was because this point is irrelevant to the issue if abortion is ok just like saying we could mine the earth for coal, but that is irrelevant to is mining ok. 7. Poor Quality of LifeMy opponent says "Well, if the child is on the streets being too cold or too hot, always wondering where your next meal would come from. Would you like that? That is the poor quality of life argument is about". Should people be allowed to end that child's life because of the poor quality of life? Of course not. Further, quality of life is temporary and can change, unlike abortion.8. Painful DeathMy opponent is defending mercy killings here; however, murder is still murder no matter what the intentions are. My opponent also said "I never said you were against abortion because of painful death, no claim was made. ", but in round 2 they said "My opponent is opposed to abortion because it could cause the fetus pain", which was untrue. My opponent claims the spectrum argument is irrelevant because a child has the right to choose once they are born. There is two problems with this. One, the child is not at the age of consent, and therefore, cannot make big decisions. Every nation realizes this which is why every age of consent is well after birth. Two, my argument was comparing situations in which people choose for others such as killing an unborn due to poverty, and killing a born due to poverty. They both deal with living humans and is a valid argument.9. Use of the term fetusThis whole debate is about human abortion, so it would only make sense that references would be about humans unless otherwise said. Just because it doesn't say human fetus ever time doesn't mean it isn't human. For example, take the word mother. Just because it doesn't say human mother doesn't make her not human.10. Need for developmentOnce again the spectrum argument isn't irrelevant for reasons listed previously. No, a three-year old cannot reproduce which is why there are no three year old parents because they have not reached sexual maturity. 11. Body autonomyMy opponents has a strange claim here. They say since it is a fertilized egg of the woman that it is part of the woman's body, especially while it is in the womb. According to this even after birth it would still be considered part of the woman's body because it is still a fertilized egg, so should she be able to kill her born child because it is still her body? This raises the further question is it the mother's body or is it the mother's mother's, Grandmother's, body? Also, it is true a zygote will become a baby because a baby is "a very young child, especially one newly or recently born" [2]. Which is why when women are pregnant they say they are going to have a baby and not they have a baby.12. OverpopulationMy opponent didn't defend his position here.13. Don't like; Don't do itThis is a common argument in the abortion debate, but it doesn't work well. If you think this reasoning is valid then anything else that could be filled in there would be valid. Such asIf you disagree with segregation don't segregate, don't stop someone else, I am not forcing anyone to segregate, it should be the person's choice. orIf you disagree with gun ownership don't get an gun, don't stop someone else, I am not forcing anyone to get an gun, it should be the person's choice. or If you disagree with public nudity don't get nude in public, don't stop someone else, I am not forcing anyone to get nude in public, it should be the person's choice. This would also work for gay marriage, polygamy, incest, dueling, euthanasia, cannibalism, suicide, prostitution, drugs, contraceptive use, alcohol, piracy, etc. This concludes my arguments for why abortion is not ok. Hopefully, to all those reading this debate will see how my opponent failed to argue and defend the position that the unborn were not human or not living; therefore, the unborn are living humans and deserve the equal protection for the right to life. Sources[1] . http://www.imdb.com...[2] . https://www.google.com...