Abortion should be Illegal in cases that do not threaten the life of the mother/baby

Since Round 3 is Rebuttals, and rebuttals of rebuttals are rebuttals, I will make rebuttals for both my opponent's argument and my opponent's rebuttals.I am challenging both my opponent's P1. and C1.If fetus is not aborted, it can still possibly die before it becomes a child (child - a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority). Therefore my opponent's P1. is false.Assuming we replace word "any" with "some" in my opponent's C1, because otherwise it doesn't even make sense:p1: If something doesn't have human rights, it is impossible to strip it of its human rights.p2:Even if the one aborting the fetus knew for sure that without abortion fetus will become a child (which can not be the case), p1 is not violated.By aborting unborn fetus, one could be stripping it of gaining human rights, but this is not an issue.Analogy: PhD can make lectures on university in Serbia. I have great potential of becoming PhD, but for some reason, those crazy people wont let me make lectures on university!I shall know refute my opponent's supposed rebuttals:1) I am challenging premise "a pregnant woman who does not wish to abort can go out drinking every night, smoke, do drugs, etc. because it is her body".Regardless if woman is pregnant or not, she could do listed stuff if it wasn't doing any harm to other humans, which is not the case here. Smoke is inhaled by all humans in same room, so she can smoke as much as she likes only in some conditions. She can not however, do drugs(except legal ones), because they are forbidden by the laws, and taxpayers originally agreed upon paying taxes in order for government to punish those who break law (this at least happened in John Locke's mind), therefore other citizens obviously do not want anyone to break law. Therefore, people do harm to other people by breaking the law.I am asking my opponent to agree upon replacing "child" with "fetus" in his statement statement "They could refuse to take children to the doctor because they don't wish to use their bodies to drive. They could refuse to buy their children food", in order for it to make sense (in this debate).But nothing in my opponent's long paragraph is refuting my arguments, it seems like an appeal to emotions to me.rebuttal of c2 depends all on how we define killing. By my opponent's definition, government is killing almost all people, by not providing them best possible medication.My opponent's 2) is valid rebuttal. Its pure semantics, and issue still stands, but since I am not allowed by debate format to reword it, my argument 2) ought to be disbanded.My opponent's 3) does not refute anything I stated. If my opponent is asking why we don't allow widespread murder, I shall answer "Because murder would violate human rights."My opponent's 4) does not refute any of my statements, however, I will give friendly explanation:In my opponent's 4), c2 is true, but legalization of heroin is harming people more than illegalization would. That is why we are keeping it illegal.I am challenging my opponent's premise "we would need to overturn a LOT of US Laws in order to ban abortion" by asking for proof (since burden is on my opponent for this statement).Adoption can not be alternative to abortion because abortion can only occur before birth and adoption can only occur after birth. Therefore, my opponent's entire PART II doesn't make any sense.I am appealing to my opponent to keep debate friendly, as I find statement "My opponent seems to want to run around in a lawless country" to be an insult.