Abortion Should be left up to the mothers

1. Pro attempts to change the goalposts For this the voters should award me both arguments and conduct, because Pro attempts to change the definition of abortion to "explosion from the uterus" BEFORE 21 WEEKS. The resolution does not address late-term abortion, but abortion in general. Pro completely ignores my framework analyss stating that she possesses a higher burden and must be able to prove necessary P -- that necessarily all abortions should be at the discretion of the mother. It would be a changing-the-goalposts fallacy to allow her to get away with changing the resolution in Round 2 to "late-term" abortion. Moreover, she provides absolutely no sourcing for her definition, whereas mine comes from the very credible Merriam-Webster. We can see from my definition that abortion is NOT LIMITED to the first 21 weeks. She attempts to set an arbitrary standard post hoc, and the voters should take this into account. This debate is already over. Pro: "Everyone has the right to make their own decisions when it comes to ones own body."First, this is an ipse dixit fallacy; Pro makes an asserton as though it's true, but doesn't back it up. Second, this doesn't apply to infants in the case of circumcision or ailing people on a respirator. Third, this is utterly irrelevant because the baby's body is distinct from the mother's body. Surely Pro would accept that a third trimester baby has its own body. By her own assertion, if it DOES own its body, it should be able to decide whether or not to die. Pro states, "We have to right to accept or deny medical treatment. Say if I was diagnosed with cancer, and I choose deny medical treatment against the doctors better judgment. Should I be able to deny ,or because they think that they can they can eradicate it ,do the treatment against my wishes? The same should go for abortion. Should they only abort if it will save the mother from certain death, or not at all?"The first part of this is utterly irrelevant because it presupposes that abortion IS a medical treatment as the status quo. However, our resolution deals with "ought," not an "is." We are not discussing what "is," but what "ought" to be. So merely the fact that legal abortion -- mind you, it's illegal in the third trimester, so even by this you vote Con -- is left to the mother now does not mean that it should be. Not to mention, Pro makes an unfounded comparison to treating cancer or ending a life. No one has ever suggested doing a treatment against your wishes. We are merely debating whether or not abortion is a TREATMENT or a valid medical procedure, and whether it ought to exist at all. Note, also, that I have never denied that abortion should be available to save a mother's life. Note that, at least in the third trimester, this is chosen by a medical professional, not by the woman. But even if I accepted the premise that a woman should be ale to decide in this particular case, that doesn't carry Pro's burden because Pro hasn't defended third-trimester elective abortion. Pro goes on to cite three reasons she believes that abortion is justified. However, this is an ipse-dixit fallacy. She fails to articulate WHY abortion is justified in these cases, so we can now discard her assertions entirely. Pro: "If we do make abortion illegal then what is next? What other decisions about are body's and our lives should they control next?"This is nothing more than a slippery-slope fallacy and beyond the scope of the resolution. Therefore, we should discard it outright. I never said that we should make abortion ILLEGAL, period. I'm saying that partial-birth abortion should not be at the sole discretion of the mother, but a medical professional should be heavily involvedPro: "I don't always agree with people's decisions, but they should still have the right to make them." You do not have a right to do whatever you want no matter the consequences. Society sets rules that we all need to follow. You can't kill someone, for instance. Therefore, if killing is wrong 10 seconds after birth, killing is also wrong 10 seconds before birth. Pro: "I agree that partial birth abortion is in my opinion wrong and murder. I understand that a fetus can feel pain and have a heartbeat extremely early in pregnancy, but some people do not realise they are pregnant at first and should therefore have the proper time to make the decision."It's good to see that Pro concedes that partial-birth abortion is murder -- though let's be clear that it is not IN HER OPINION murder, but actually murder. However, he argument for keeping it at the sole discretion of the mother is ludicrous. She says that a woman may not realize she's pregnant AT FIRST and this may impact her ability to make the decision. Here are the problems with it: (a) it presupposes the justification of the "decision" made by the women, which Pro has failed to do (b) Partial-birth abortion is late second trimester or third trimester. How can you not have known you're pregnant by the THIRD TRIMESTER of pregnancy? This argument s positively ludicrous. Not to mention, even if I accepted the premise, ignorance is not a justification for murder. Pro: "I do believe that it needs to be regulated."Regulated in what way? Pro isn't clear. If abortion is regulated, it isn't simply the mother's decision. Pro concedes the debate with this remark. Pro says: "Which do you feel is worseA. Aborting a fetus at 6 weeks, orB. letting the child possibly live through birth only to live a few days in excruciating pain?" This is irrelevant to the resolution because I'm contesting late-term abortion and abortion left up to the sole discretion of the mother. Not to mention, the 6-week interval is utterly irrelevant. As I have said, my line is at the point at which dilation and extraction is the preferred method of abortion, which is late second trimester. But to answer your question, I do think, via FLO, that abortion a fetus is much worse because you have denied that child a meaningful future and denied his or her bodily autonom.Dropped arguments All of my contentions have been dropped. Extend them.