Abortion should be allowed

Again, I will begin by responding to your arguments: 1)The ANNUAL figure for abortions has been above 1.5 million since the 80's. Simple math shows that the number of abortions in the past 20 years is indeed on the same magnitude as Stalin and Hitler. You claim that Hitler and Stalin killed "Actual living and breathing people." Please note that my comparison was conditional. The comparison stands only if fetuses have the right to life, and my position is that a fetus is an "actual" person. On a related note, your comment that the people killed by Hitler and Stalin could "actually feel…pain" does not impact this debate unless you can show how those characteristics are morally relevant and affect whether or not the fetus has a right to life. Furthermore, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that a fetus DOES feel pain. It is certainly able to react to stimuli. 2) Your argument equates to saying "it is justified to murder someone if they don't have a good life." There is no way to know whether or not a fetus will have a future. I contend that no person has the right to take away the future of another thing. No one has the authority to deem another person's future worthless. I would also like to point out that you have not offered any way to quantify the number of abortions that are carried out by mothers who would be unable to support a child. There is no way to quantify how many of these abortions fit into this category. The point remains however, that even if it is true that many abortions (this is something you have NOT demonstrated) involve a mother or household that would be inappropriate for a child that does not legitimize stealing a thing's future. I will point out that you did not address my analysis in my offense argument #3. You did not address my point that: i)A fetus is potentially a full grown human and there is no difference in the relation between a fetus and adult and a toddler and an adult ii)Depriving a thing of a future like ours is ethically equivalent to murder iii)YOU must provide a morally relevant difference between a fetus and an adult if you are going to claim a moral difference like the absence of a right to life. By ignoring these points, you have functionally conceded them in this debate. YOU HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE A MORALLY RELEVANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FETUS AND A FULL GROWN PERSON. This means that you cannot claim that a fetus does not have a right to life! This point remains uncontested in this debate. 3) You ignore all my analysis on the way rights conflict and the necessity of weighing rights. You did not explain how rights in conflict should be evaluated or how they relate to this issue. I am winning on this point because you have not responded to my points. You are merely parroting that a woman has a right to her body, which is something I agree with. My point is that a fetus also has a right to life and abortion is a point where rights conflict. Again, you have not provided any response to my points. 4) I admit that choices are good things. However, some things we should not have a choice over. For instance, we should not have the choice to steal. We should not have the choice to lie in court. We should not have the choice to throw large rocks at random passer-bys. The question of abortion is not "are choices good?" but is rather "is this something people should have a choice about?" Now I would like to restate my points that my opponent has not addressed and has thus functionally conceded: 1)Rights conflict and we must engage in a critical analysis about how to deal with conflicting rights. Abortion is an instance where this is the case. This means it is not enough to just say, "a woman has a right to her body" because there are other rights that conflict. 2)Abortion is not simply a matter of personal choice because it is an issue of justice. Protection of rights is an issue that requires involvement of third parties. The fact that multiple people's rights are in conflict means that it is an issue of justice. 3)The issue of a child being wanted is not relevant in the face of a right to life. The only relevant issues are the rights involved. 4)You have effectively conceded the back alley abortion issue. Reference my R1 to see why my opponent loses on this issue. He has made no rebuttal to my points. 5)Right to life outweighs privacy. My opponent did not dispute this. Life is the most valuable thing a person can have and thus life is the ultimate right. The right to life presupposes other rights and so trumps other rights. 6)We should err on the side of caution. My opponent never disputed my analysis here or any of my claims. He only disputed the issue of the magnitude of abortion. All my other claims stand. The magnitude of the evil of abortion if the fetus has a right to life overwhelms the possibility that abortion is ethically acceptable. On this point alone I have won this debate. 7)A fetus has a right to life. Again, my opponent didn't dispute, blah, blah…. The point is, my opponent has dropped nearly all my points including the most important one, whether a fetus has a right to life. For these reasons I am winning the debate. PLEASE VOTERS, BE NEUTRAL IN VOTING ON THIS DEBATE!!!!