Abortion should be legal in every case, even late-term

Let me first clarify that the debate is NOT about whether abortion should be accepted in certain circumstances. The resolution proposed that abortion must be legal in ALL cases. Pro has not even came close to fulfilling his BOP or even proving the resolution generally true. I do believe that the only circumstance in which abortion is acceptable is when the mother's life is at risk, yes. That does not at all imply that I believe the fetus is "less important" than the mother. Due to the fact that the mother is going to die, life would be terrible for the fetus as well because of the mother-less life he/she would have to live. I think it is more beneficial to let the mother abort in that one minuscule circumstance. My opponent goes on to state that my evidence is irrelevant? ?? He also brings up one specific case? I don't see how using one example is relevant. I already established how seldom the rape case is so I don't comprehend what my opponent's point is. I also would like to point out that there is a time period after the rape in which the woman can take a birth control pill. The woman has 120 hours to significantly reduce the chances of pregnancy and if taken soon after the rape prevent the pregnancy. [1]My opponent goes on to make an abstract point about population. He seems to be advocating for abortion as a population control method, yet again? I have proven this argument whimsical. My opponent must also think that it is justified to humanely kill all seniors who are incapable of providing anything for society as well, since it's humane by his standards if they do not feel pain. There is no solidification of this point and I urge for it to be discarded unless my opponent can adequately justify the lavish claim. Then he goes on to quote a Capitalist magazine practically restating the argument he has stood by throughout the debate. The quote states that the fetus has no right to occupy the mother's womb but I ask my opponent this question: What right does a doctor have to murder an innocent human being? Murray Rothbard did advocate for abortion true, but how is this relevant? If my opponent wants to compare intelligent advocates for each side we can perhaps do that in another debate. I don't see a point in stating other strong anti-abortion intellects. Property Argument:I still stand strongly against the fatalistic property argument. I do not believe that the woman has the right to infringe upon the well-being of another individual. If you were in my house, I would have no right to kill you. I would have the right to evict you from my house however that is completely different. If somehow it was possible to preserve the life of the fetus by eviction then by all means I would be for it but the fact that we are talking about murder here is where it goes wrong. The woman has no right to murder an innocent human being for it is prima facie morally wrong as I have proved in today's debate. Finally my opponent goes on to state that my African argument has no particular interest in today's debate. He also states that this is not a problem? It is not a problem that more children are being aborted in the black community than being born? Is this not an extreme degradation and does it not form a negative connotation for the African American society? I don't see where my opponent's logic is. One may ask well why does this occur? Partially because of the fact that they are young and do not want to bear a child however because by making all cases of abortion illegal you are advocating that it is ok to kill the fetus. The woman does not know that it is immoral and it is technically murder. Perhaps she does, but instinctively she chooses to prioritise her individual arbitrary whim over the right of an individual. Conclusion:My opponent provides virtually no adequate response to my two contentions. He as a matter of fact agreed with a small portion of my first contention and completely ignored the rest. In my second contention he dodged it by saying it was irrelevant? My opponent also provides almost no solidification for any of his arguments and rather restates them. He has not refuted the fact that he isn't proving the resolution generally true. He also has not refuted that a fetus is a human meaning he agrees with the statement. Therefore I am winning on a moral context since it is prima facie morally wrong to kill an innocent human being. Finally, my opponent has not by any means fulfilled his BOP thus I urge a CON ballot. Sources: (Round 3). http://ec.princeton.edu...Round 2:1. . http://bound4life.com...... 2. . http://www.christianliferesources.com......... 3. Stephen Swarz, The Moral Question of Abortion 4. . http://www.nbccongress.org...... . http://ec.princeton.edu...