Abortion should remain legal.

Given that I am not given enough characters to both respond to Pro's cross-ex questions and rebut his arguments and cross-ex responses, I shall not be doing the former. For me to sacrifice my rebuttal round becase Pro forfeited and then broke his own rules (which stated that R3 was to be for CX while R4 is for rebuttals) would be putting myself at an unfair and undeserved disadvantage.Also, I explicitly asked my opponent to explain his answers to my questions. He failed to do so in his response to Q1 and Q2.Responses"Q1- Bodily autonomy and free will, yes."Thank you."Q2- No."Given that my third contention in R2 was that the moral obligation to preserve innocent life is of the highest order, this answer is insufficient in the extreme."Q3- In comparison to nature, it is a parasite the host has created that takes nutrients from the host. Because the fetus's body is in the woman's body, the woman has superior rights to everything. I guess we can parallel this to receiving rights in America, the older you are, the more rights you gain."I shall be quoting heavily from my personal blog to refute this response.The first problem with this argument is that it is biologically inaccurate on many different levels.[1] Parasites are labelled parasitic animals whether they are in a parasitic stage of their life cycle or not. If the fetus is a parasite, then every adult mammal, whether it be a human or an elephant, is also a parasite. If this is so, then the term has been so stripped of meaning as to be useless. Also, a parasite contribues "nothing to the survival of its host"[2] whereas feti have been shown to contribue stem cells to damaged organs of the mother.[3] Obviously then, the fetus is not a parasite by any truly scientific definition. Instead, when people call the fetus a parasite they are using the popular layman’s definition of the word. I shall now proceed to refute the ethical arguments developed based on this inaccurate definition. Pt. #1 - The fetus has no moral guilt The fetus did not intentionally enter a woman’s womb, and in most cases its presence there is actually a result of the woman’s decisions. The pro-choice person will say that this does not matter, as bodily violation is not necessarily intentional. This is true, but it does not mean that the intentions of the violating party are irrelevant. There is an undeniable difference in the moral guilt of someone who has accidentally brushed their hand against another person and someone who has purposefully groped another person. In both cases the person violated has a right to put a stop to the action. He or she may resort to force, even lethal force, to prevent someone from groping them. However, it would be wholly inappropriate to use the same force against a person who has accidentally brushed up against them. That person has not intentionally done any harm and does not deserve such treatment. Similarly, the fetus has not intentionally invaded the body of a woman. Using lethal action against it, therefore, is an immoral act and the taking of an innocent life. Pt. #2 - There is a moral obligation to sacrifice to preserve innocent life I have already made this contention in R2 and my opponent failed to make a rebuttal in this, the designated rebuttal round. It may therefore be considered a dropped argument and an established point. However, allow me to elaborate upon it now. The crux of this contention is that life is valuable. We can do this using assumptions made by the pro-choice side to avoid a debate on the point. If abortion is necessary, as they claim, to ensure quality of life for women, we may infer that life has some value. Because they claim that government has no right to interfere with their reproductive decisions (and, thus, their quality of life), we may also infer that they believe their quality of life to have value that exceeds governmental law. God, divine law, higher law, natural law, morality, ethics—whatever one chooses to call it, the pro-choice community indirectly references it when placing value upon life. There are very few situations that mentally healthy people regard as being worse than death, and some hold that no such situations exist. Quality of life is clearly secondary to life itself, and to say that one’s right to a certain quality of life trumps another person’s right to life itself is fallacious. If such ethics were to be implemented into law it would be legal to murder someone for their possessions. Some would reply that although keeping the unborn child alive may be the moral thing to do, compelling someone to do the right thing is illegal. This is untrue in many cases, but proving it to be untrue falls outside the scope of this post. Instead, I shall simply explain why statements like the one below are irrelevant. "Bodily autonomy is defined as the right for a person to control what they do to their bodies without the interruption or force of someone else. It is a right that is given to everyone and is one of the reasons why it is illegal to take organs from the deceased that have not signed off permission. If we continue this right after life, why do we strip it from a pregnant woman? We cannot morally, or legally (in my opinion), strip away the rights that we grant to the deceased, and to go against this argument would be irrational. Why would you grant a dead person a right that you wouldn’t give to someone that is alive. I’ve read something that rings true, that if someone needs something donated that you have, you are not legally obligated to donate anything. This parallels to pregnancies because a fetus does need these resources, but the mother is not legally obligated to keep giving this baby her resources. Denying to give someone a body part is not illegal, so terminating a pregnancy should not be illegal."Using governmental law as a framework for the debate is pointless. Regardless of whether the government has a right to compel a person to preserve child’s life, that person has a moral obligation to do so. Add to this that we have already established that life has value that is of a higher origin than human law and the above argument becomes irrelevant."Q4- Once again, you cannot base your argument on the fetus being alive knowing that neither scientists nor philosophers have pinpointed the moment life begins. And you cannot mirror the dependence of a fetus/woman to someone else/who they are dependent on. The fetus cannot do anything and 100% relies on the woman for nutrients. If you re dependent as a child, teen, or adult, there is still a sort of independence. If the person you are dependent on dies or gets sick, you can find someone else to help you. However, if a woman gets sick or dies, the fetus is out of luck. So that is why you cannot compare the severity of the dependency of the fetus to anything else, logically at least."My opponent has failed yet again to provide the source for his claim that the scientific community has not determined when life begins. I have asked for his source for this claim multiple times now, and although he has failed to provide it he continues to make the same unsupported claim.Also, since I argued in R2 that the fetus is alive and he has failed to rebut it, it may be considered to be a dropped argument and an estabished point."Q4- Once again, you cannot base your argument on the fetus being alive knowing that neither scientists nor philosophers have pinpointed the moment life begins. And you cannot mirror the dependence of a fetus/woman to someone else/who they are dependent on. The fetus cannot do anything and 100% relies on the woman for nutrients. If you re dependent as a child, teen, or adult, there is still a sort of independence. If the person you are dependent on dies or gets sick, you can find someone else to help you. However, if a woman gets sick or dies, the fetus is out of luck. So that is why you cannot compare the severity of the dependency of the fetus to anything else, logically at least."My opponent failed to answer what was asked of him. Is dependence, total or otherwise, a justification for the termination of life? If so, why?"Q5- We are often taught, from the Constitution, that you are born with these natural rights. The natural rights were set by the Constitution, and not all countries give their citizens these rights. Why focus on giving a fetus rights that aren't granted to people that can are conscious and breathing?"This is a red herring. By the same token, why given women the right of bodily autonomy when women in other countries do not have it?Also, please see Pt. 2 of my Q4 response for further commentary on the irrelevance of legality in this debate. RebuttalsMy opponent had three main points in R2.1. Unwanted pregnancies occur2. The right to bodily autonomy makes making abortion illegal immoral3. Being in favor of euthanasia but not abortion is an inconsistent positionRebuttal #1 - Unwanted pregnancies occurThis is uncontested and irrelevant.Rebuttal #2 - The right to bodily autonomy makes making abortion illegal immoralMy opponent has not rebutted my R2 contentions that the right to life supersedes all others and that the unborn are alive. Because of this, I have already proven that the right to life of the fetus should trump the right to bodily autonomy.Rebuttal #3 - Being in favor of euthanasia but not abortion is an inconsistent positionThis is an irrelevant point. Inconsistency in a set of beliefs does not invalidate said beliefs.ConclusionI shall close by once again asking my opponent to provide a modern and reliable source for his claim that the scientific community has not determined when life begins in regard to the unborn.Sources1. http://www.l4l.org...2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...3. http://www.newscientist.com...