Abortion is generally immoral

1. Rape or incest? Now, one must look into my 3rd argument, and overall case. My third argument refutes this in and of itself, as it still applies under the golden rule. Let's say your an innocent little baby. Your mom get raped, and in her anger she shoves a hanger up in the you know what and kills you. Or she goes to planned parent hood and she gets the doctor to put a spoon in there. Either way you die. Would you want to die? Would you want to have been aborted? NO!Another reason is based on the fact he fetus never actually did the raping, the fetus is innocent and is a byproduct of the innocent, not the creator or the helper, he is not related to the incident in any way except he accidentally showed up. This case, to me, is exactly like "oops I got drunk". Why? Because the same action occurred: Sex and you accidentally came. And sure, there is a difference, but as I have proven a fetus is a human I think we should herald the fetus's life over the pregancy. Also, the resolution reads GENERALLY immoral, 51% or more of the time. Rape is only a reason 0.5% of the time. [1] This argument is largely irrelevant. 2. For me?This is irrelevant as it fails too:a) Prove ABORTION IS IMMORAL/MORAL, and is just an attack on me. b) does not even relate to abortion, only my "contradictory" viewsDue to the fact this argument relates to me, not the resolution or other, it is irrelevant. But I have to respond because this argument is irritating. The differences between the DP and abortion are large. Firstly, 99.8% of the time the DP has been accurate. DNA checks, our judicial system etc makes it dog gone impossible to kill an innocent in modern times. I can only think of one instance this happening in the last decade (2006). In the DP, your killing a violent person who has himself broken the moral codes in society, and therefore does not deserve to have the same rights we deserve. He, himself, concedes his right the minute his murder weapon penetrates. He has then said he will not obey the moral orders. I therefore think he should be punished. Also the DP is about punishment of criminals, not murder of human innocent fetus's. the two issues are very separate. Either way this is irrelevant, but refuted. 3. Fetal ownership This argument says property over life. Now I can do the same logic and apply it to another subject:1. Individuals own their property (in your case body is property)2. Dogs are pets and are propertyC: Dogs are property of their owner3. People can destroy what they own 4. People own their petsC: It is moral to kill a dog that you ownThis logic hardly works in modern day society, and killing based on property is illogical. This means, as kids in their young age are still property kind of, it is now moral to kill young children if your their parents. This makes no sense. This logic is flawed. My opponent then relates a tumor to a fetus, but this is refuted in my arguments above. A fetus has a future like ours, as well as having the capability to becoming a human being. Therefore killing it removes his future and he no longer has ability. Doing that is immoral by all standard. A tumor, however, does not have this future or capability. Hence relating the two is like relating radiation and black-holes. His point is flawed logic AND his tumor relation fails miserably.CONCLUSION:He dropped my arguments, hence they still stand. Here is the break down of his arguments: > 1. Refuted but assuming he wins this argument it only applies to 0.5% of abortions. The resolution states GENERALLY immoral hence he must prove is moral 51% of the time. This argument is far from that, and therefore means nothing no matter who wins it. > 2. Irrelevant, an attack on me not the debate or the resolution. DOES NOT APPLY. Also, refuted. > 3. Was very flawed and refuted as needed. 100% of my case stands untouched, 2 of his points are irrelevant and/or do nothing to get him too 51%, and the third is question begging and refuted. VOTE PRO>[1] http://old.usccb.org...