DDOlympic: Abortion should be illegal

My opponent's arguments are very short, so my rebuttal will be short also. This round will *just* be for rebuttals from me, as the structure says, and the next round will be about the defense of my arguments as my opponent rebutted them last round, and the conclusion of the debate. My opponent in the debate shows an libertarianism. Same as me, which is weird, as I showed that the framework is basically my side. But we have the same framework, so it makes the debate easier. Okay, now I will make my rebuttals of my opponent's arguments. My opponent has a very short argument, so I will be rebutting it turn by turn. My opponent argues that every human being is an invividual. I agree with this part of the statement. Then my opponent says that it includes unborn children, and this is false. My opponent, suprisinly doesn't work hard on his arguments, and doesn't say *anything* about the fetus in the debate only just say that it is a human, and gives a bare assertion for this. I showed many reasons and evidence about the 7 things needed for living, and if the fetus is living or not, and I have shown that the fetus is not a living being. My opponent doesn't give *any* reasons and sources/evidence on the claim that unborn children, or a fetus is a human being. As I showed a reason, and evidence, when my opponent had *nothing*, voters *must* come from my side, as I am the only one who gave *any* evidence about if the fetus is human or not, and with sources, I have showed that a fetus is not a human being, so voters must buy my argument then my opponent's. My opponent *can't* give any more evidence about this, because it counts as an argument, and according to the rules, it is a violation of conduct. So if my opponent makes any evidence or reasons for this, voters cannot buy it, and *should* think of the violation of conduct in his/her vote. My opponent says that an unborn fetus also causes harm to the mother. If my opponent is talking about if we don't do an abortion, and the fetus causes harm, that is basically an argument for me, showing that the fetus, which is not living, causes harm to the mother, and takes away her liberty, so abortion should be legal. My opponent will probably not talk about this, as he won't make an argument out of his side, so he *must* have talked about it in another side, when we do an abortion, it will cause harm. First of all, if it is an illegal abortion, then yes. That is why we should legalize abortion, so it is an beneficial arugment for me, and a concession from my opponent's side. So my opponent would probably talk about the other side, that a normal abortion. However my opponent's argument is a bare assertion, and basically false, and doctors are good at preparing this. So my opponent's argument is refuted. I will give a premise to make it easier. P1: My opponent can talk about a non-abortionP2: My opponent can talk about an illegal abortionP3: My opponent can talk about a safe abortionC1: P1 is my side, so my opponent won't talk about it. P2 also. So my opponent must talk about P3. C2: My opponent's argument is a bare assertion, and falseC3: As my opponent's argument is failed in all ways, vote for CON. My opponent says that the women is responsible for creating the child. First of all, as in my teenager argument, the teenagers for example [1] don't even know that they were getting a baby. It's not *their* fault to create the "baby". Many more of these situations will come, the evidence was only from teenagers, but logically, there will be more counting non-teenagers. So we can't fault them for creating the "baby", as it is not their fault. The reason why I put a quotation mark of "baby" is that, as I said they are not babies, or human beings. So we can't care if they are getting hurt, as they aren't living anyways. So my opponent's statement of this is false, and I can't forget! !! My opponent's argument again, is a BARE ASSERTION. My opponent in his next paragraph says like, ". .. so killing will not be justified", and "it is not a big deal. .. compare to the child's situation of helplessness. .. looming threat of death". First of all, as I said in all my arguments, the fetus is not a human being. My opponent just says that it is a human being, but gives no evidence for this claim. So it is not killing, and it does not have the right of life, so it will be justified if it harms someone else's life. And, my opponent says it is not a big deal. A human being dead is a big deal. My opponent thinks it is a big deal when a non-living fetus dies, but not a living mother. This is unlogical, and really strange. Killing is immoral, and it is a big deal. Everyone related to her will be sad and very tormented when they hear that she died because of the non-living fetus. It is not a child, so my opponent's statement of this is wrong. And I almost forgot, but this is a BARE ASSERTION again. My opponent doesn't give *any* sources or evidence in the whole debate. So all of his cases are bare assertions. In conclusion, my opponent's short arguments are bare assertions, poorly explained, doesn't explain *anything* about the fetus being living, and I showed it is not, so voters should buy my argument, as I used sources, and I refuted all of his poorly explained statements in the debate. Pro cannot make more evidence for his arguments, as it is a rule violation, and if this happens, voters will be urged to think about it. I showed that the framework is not the side, and my opponent doesn't link his arguments with his framework, when I did, and the framework showed that abortion should be legal. As I refuted all of my opponent's arguments, therefore vote for Con in this debate! !! Thank you, and please vote for CON! !! [1] My teenage argument in round 2 (I don't need sources, because this is for rebuttal)