abortion must be free in every country

my opponent says that I have not refuted his arguements but if you understand no need to write anything except my exapmle about a right not to help to another one. that example refutes and can refute any kind of arguement against liberty on abortion, that is just enough to understand and explain that abortion is the right of a human but yet I will answer him, when I worte in short words I thought that he will understand, seems he did not. ok, I will answer both rounds. again {{{these symbols will be used to quote my opponent}}}{{{Through the very foundation of our human dignity and unalienable rights that we as humans have established, the right to life is the most important of them all, for all other rights, including our other unalienable rights transcend from this.}}} (RULES WHICH DOES NOT EXIST BUT THOUGHT TO EXIST)first there is no standart form of a rules named {{{unalienable rights}}} and we have not established a rule like that? from his words I can understand that he is american or he lives in america, americans have never gathered, confessed to establish a right or rule like that and such rules does not exist, anyway, americans have never discussed about such rules, and I think no society did it, hence there is not standart/declared version of rules named {{{unalienable rights}}}, hence you can not require somebody to live according to the rules which you presume as a right.when the standart form of rules like that gets created, come and use it as an arguement, at this point there is no rules or rights like that, or there iis a rule like that and do not I know it? even google does not know it I have googled it:https://www.google.com.tr...; (no need to google it but for accuracy for arguement I did it.)even if we say that rules exist, however, the usa is multinational country and there are so many types of nationalities in the usa, each nationality may have its own unalienable rules, then it is not justice to force somebody according to YOUR unalienable rules. for example, the chinese live in the usa, italians live in the usa, turks live in the usa, and theya re also society, eastern and western societies differ in mentality, what will happen if turks judge a chinese according to the unalienable rules set by their own society? as it is not justice, forcing a woman is not, if we were a society in america, according to our society presumptions, before marriage it is illegal for girls to date with boyfriend, now in the usa there are so many girls who have BFs, is it justice to penalise them because our society presumtios rules does not allow it? your abortion is like this. however, let me make it clear for you(for an american):The Declaration of Independence lists life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as unalienable rights. The Constitution lists certain rights, but they aren't unalienable. and everybody is not to live according to it http://bit.ly...this part is also answer to: {{{I will be arguing that the woman should not have the choice to abort a child due our unalienable right to life and the very basics of our human dignity.}}} {{{As Americans, we have established that the right to life is an unalienable right and is to never be taken away, unless the rights of the individual is taken away due to actions they have committed against the society.}}}I wrote it but again I will write: when have you done it? it is not a fact, it is not a standart constituition and hence you can not force somebody to live on your rules, by your logic: the society I belong does also live in the usa too, now we can force any girl in the usa not to have a BF before marriage because our unalienable rules require it. we can penalise them, if you say: no you can penalise the girls who belong to your society, then force women who belong to your society to help the baby in order to survive, not others.{{{Abortion is Immoral}}}I didnot quote all paragraph because my character limit will not suffice If I do this, he says, moral also has no standart form or constituition and to so many societies drinking alcohol, prostituition, having sex before marriage is also crime according to their unalienable rules, now every society can penalise or force people according to their unalienable rights. according to our rules(RULES WHICH DOES NOT EXIST BUT THOUGHT TO EXIST) like that every action I counted is crime, then we have a right to penalise anybody who drinks alcohol, has sex before marriage and e.t.c because our unalienable rules let us penalise such person. how many types of society does the US have? and according to which people of the US needs to live? our morality lets us penalise such person, our unalienable rules gives us right to penalise such person. according to his words, he says human development begins at fertilisation, who ignores it? who ignores that the baby is human? will be human in the future? all I say is that: woman has right not to help. no one denies that the baby is innocent(except christianity, because their original sin destroys innocence of everybody), no one denies that the baby has a right to live but you the one who denies the woman has a right not to help. {{{Every abortion takes the life of an unborn member of the human race}}}let us consider him the human, no matter born or not, you are destroying the right of the woman not to help. {{{If there must be justification for killing me, there must also be a reason to kill that child.}}} we are not killing the child, I am not saying to kill child, I just say: the woman wants not to help the baby, invent something which can keep baby alive. {{{Since that child is of absolute spiritual and physical innocence, it should therefore not be aborted.}}} I do not say that the abortion is required because that baby is sinner or guil;ty, I say: we do not want to help that baby, and it is our right. {{{I hope these arguments were enlightening to you, and I hope they may give you a change of heart and the ever controversial issue of abortion.}}}I hope this refutations will help you to understand that we are not killing nor trying to kill, we just want to use our right not to help to the person we do not want to help. {{{ “you have a right to leave, baby has a right to live on BUT the woman has also right not to destroy her life so that the baby can live on” I do not understand what my opponent is saying due to atrocious grammatical mistakes. I ask my opponent to clarify in his next response. }}} you are right, it was mistake, I meant: baby has a right to LIVE but the woman has right not to help. and my opponent says that: {{{The woman has no right to simply “not carry a baby”}}} by this logic: every rich man can be forced to help to the pool ill people so that they can survive, if I am ill and no money for treatment then society can force a rich man to help so that I can survive.{{{This is because the ease of the life of the woman does not transcend the absolute innocent life of the unborn child.}}} I have never said that the baby is guilty or committed a crime, I just said: the one who does not want to help others, he/she has a right not to help, I have never said that we have to kill that baby, I just said: the woman who does not want to help or wants not to help we have to let him not help. that is all.{{{ In response to me arguing that innocent, human life is not to be terminated do to respect for human dignity and the right to life}}}I hav enever said that the baby needs to be killed.{{{Here’s the thing though, by allowing abortion you are directly destroying the liberty that unborn human has to live}}} no, u r wrong. I am n ot killing him, or requesting to kill him, if you set, let the baby live, but you are destroying the liberty of woman so that the baby can live, I say: the woman wants to stop providing baby's needs, if you can keep the baby alive do it, that is the problem of the people who want baby not to die, we want not to help baby, that is all, we do not care if baby lives or not, we just want not to help him. {{{Much like how a man’s right to murder ends at the human’s right to live, the woman’s right to have an abortion ends at that child’s right to live.}}}we are not killing or murdering, the pregnant woman provides baby's needs, we are just stopping to provide, that is all we do. {{{The reason unalienable rights exist}}} that rules does not exist, just presumed to be existing, in fact no rule like that, and there are so many types of unalienable rules in the usa too, according to which we have to live? according to our socity's rules havng sex before marriage is also illegal and our unalienable rights give us a right to kill such person, then by your logic: we have a right every person in the world who has sex beforee marriage, we have a right to penalise him/her. do you agree with me?{{{Unalienable rights are not rights that were created, but trough human nature itself, have always existed. You cannot choose to have unalienable rights or not in a society, because unalienable rights are not something that is bestowed, but rather, have always existed.}}}has never existed and always believed to exist and you can not require and force somebody to your beliefs and you rpresumptious rules, if you can I also can, this will result with the civil war in the usa and the world, do you agree with me?{{{The rest of my opponent’s arguments are dedicated to providing stories that are supposed to be examples comparable to abortion. The thing is, the stories are extremely flawed and cannot be compared to abortion at all.}}}can be compared and nothing has been flawed, this example refutes every arguement against abortion that is why they name it: FLAWED (:THIS EXAPMLE REFUTES ALL THE ARGUEMENTS AGAINST ABORTION. {{{Under no circumstance can the parent simply allow the child to die though.}}}yes he can.my limit is about to end, now: what about new debate? I have a right not to help others, so that the pregnant woman.