That abortion should not be a crime

I actually gave four points against your topic: 1.Men and women have equal rights. 2. Abortion is literally evil as reasons stated in my argument. 3.Your argument isn't "gender injustice," It's about protecting the life of the child. 4.Your rights end when they infringe on other peoples' rights, especially the right to life. "I agree that if a man..... " --opponent My opponent obviously missed my ultimate point, and the point pro life people are making. The REASON why abortion is wrong is because the baby isn't seen as a living human, even though Science agrees that it IS a living human. Therefore, since it is considered a living human, then yes, the mother should be charged with a crime. This applies to ANYONE trying to kill the unborn child. It's ALL wrong, and there should be NO acceptions. Also, according to your own definition, an abortion is, "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks." If a man deliberately hits a woman in the stomach, surprisingly, it fits the definition, thus it would be applicable to argue this point. However, human life in the womb isn't dependent on a definition, which you clearly defended. The issue as to WHY abortions are evil is based on the fact that killing a human is murder. Anyone else that kills the child doesn't get charged with assault, they get charged with murder. They killed a human life. Here in lies the inherent contradiction that you have failed to address and side stepped by dismissing it as irrelevant, when it is: If the woman aborts, it is the only case that isn't considered murder. The best argument that the left gives to this is that it is "a woman's body." Of course. But we have this law called the right to life, and I don't think we should make accpetions or give power to any individual to decided who is worthy of being a human and who isn't in our society. Like I've said before, it's wrong. Nay, it's evil. "My opponent stated that ONLY under the law he had provided, does killing a fetus is considered as killing ...-Opponent First of all, I can't read your mind and know where you are from and what laws you have. So as the I am the "con" in this debate, I am respectfully asking to see what the laws of Australia in terms of abortion, and what the punishment is for someone who kills the baby of a pregnant woman. I would assume that I won't be that surprised on the outcome of this. I will also do my own research in this, but I have officially asked for evidence on these two laws. Please provide them. Furthermore, we have the ability to look beyond the laws of our countries and turn to science for some objectivity, since I've proven that the laws are hypocritical on this subject. According to Northwestern University, life begins the moment when the sperm meets the egg. We can now measure the stages in human development. "The immediate product of fertilization- is just a potential human being and not a real existing human being."--Opponent. This argument is outdated. Scientists can know exactly which egg will survive, and which egg wont: "This means if you can look at the zinc spark at the time of fertilization, you will know immediately which eggs are the good ones to transfer in in vitro fertilization " --Theresa Woodroof http://www.northwestern.edu... Case and point--Abortion is evil, and killing an child, regardless of stage or by WHOM, should be murder. "Let me point out the flaws that the opponent had made. Starting with the opponent's claim that I mischaracterized history. The fact is that I had not mischaracterized history. women were and are still seen as tools to men." --Opponent My opponent hasn't provided any evidence to support her contention that "women are still tools to men." She's also using dubious terminology again. 1. What evidence do you have that shows in today's world that men use and see women as tools? What right does a man have that a woman doesn't? 2. What do you mean by the word, "tool?" "That is a woman had to be married to a man, had to provide him with... -Opponent What law in the past says that women HAD to get married? Evidence? "had to obey her husband always and was seen as her husband's property."-- False: In the words of one anti-suffragette Dr. Elizabith Wilkes examining the marital laws in NY state in 1910, she has all the rights of income and property "as if she were unmarried, excepting marriage. The wife cannot absolve the husband of his duty to support her". Regarding property and income, married women became a form of super-citizen--they enjoyed all rights and benefits of property and income as if unmarried, while simultaneously enjoying all rights and benefits of their husbands' legally enforceable obligation of maintenance and support. "Who were in charge of a nation into war? ...." So since a gender started wars, it's grounds for dismissal? Ad Hominem. The character/race/sex/creed of a body of people isn't grounds to refute or dismiss an argument. Also, this one was pretty sexist. "Firstly, most abortion happens because of unwanted sex.... False. Your quote and study doesn't prove that most abortions are because of unwanted sex. Since rape is an extremely small factor in AU, the rest of her argument bolstering rape victims isn't worth addressing, since my opponent misrepresented her own study. Here is the truth: "Various studies show about 96% of all abortions are performed for psychosocial reasons, half of late-term abortions" https://www.emilysvoice.com... (This website properly cites scientific studies) Conclusions: 1) No matter what the condition of the mother is, the child is innocent and doesn't deserve to die. 2) I will address Darwinian theory next round. (No more characters) 3). Since the child is a living being (as I have proven), abortion is therefore murder.