Abortion

Thank you for your response. My opponent says that one definition can not be preferred over another. But it can. If Obama tells you what political capital is, and someone who is high on drugs tells you what political capital is, who will you believe. This is a rhetorical question that does not require an answer, so please don't give me one. My definition is preferable. Next On the early abortion factor. My opponent who created this topic did not say if this was domestic or international. I was under the impression that it was domestic. My opponent wants to talk about illogicality, but this argument is very illogical. You cannot stop one big thing (in this case, abortion) in the whole world. It is impossible. So everything I said was referring to domestic issues in the United States of America. This is VERY illogical and is IMPOSSIBLE. It cannot be stopped in every country, every city, every state, every province, every house, every neighborhood, ect. It can be stopped perhaps in one country. Not every country. You could not make every country to make the drinking age 18, and you cannot force every county to illegalize abortion. And since I was under the impression we were talking about the United States of America, then I was CLEARLY CORRECT on the fact that doctors do not abort babies in the third term. Next On the necessity issue. My opponent says " If it wass absolutely necessary then I'd approve of it because it would be an unusual circumstance ". Like I said in my first speech every abortion (99.9+%) is an unusual circumstance. A very small percent of women abort as a way of birth control, this should be illegal, not abortion as a whole. My opponent also says that "Many women abort because they feel they don't want a child or because they feel they're not ready yet."(cross-apply with human rights as seeing that the baby would not be taken care of properly.) Thank you Con, this is my whole point if not the most important. Women should have the right to choose whether or not they can properly care for their child. My opponent says " woman does indeed want an abortion, and never considers her fetus in making the decision." Well my opponent does not realize that a 2 year old doesn't know what they want, therefore not even a newborn Einstein would make his decisions. But the answer is clear, they would love to stay alive unless they are suicidal. And a newborn isn't suicidal. Also cross-apply this argument with the early abortion issue. If doctors don't abort early then there will be no deciding on the fetuses part. Next On the teenage pregnancy. H uses evidence from 2006 when I was reading a paper in 2008 that stated teenage pregnancy skyrocketed. Therefore we can see that it is rising. Have you ever seen the Maury Povich show? 14/15 year old girls that are pregnant. This is even more true in the real world. This proves my point. Next On the women's rights argument. Women's rights and human rights go hand-in-hand. therefore if we choose human right then we are calling women not human by my opponents logic. End of story, my opponent is being derogatory(that rhymed :) ) by saying that we must choose women's rights over human rights. The judges must hold him accountable on this subject. And the women's body argument is totally logical. We must respect women as humans and give them a say in what happens to their body Next On the back-alley abortion issue. It is not a HUGE issue now but it will be a HUGE issue if we illegalize abortion. He is talking A LOT about murder, but this simply depends on perception. It depends on the person. He is the person who thinks it is a horrible thing. I believe it can be justified. Next On sources. He uses two wikipedia sources an one blog. These are not trusted sources so what he got from these sources cannot be evaluated. Source http://www.usatoday.com...