Abortion is a Form of Euthanasia, and Should Be Treated as Such

First off, I am not defending KKK lynchings, and do not think in reality they take the courtesy to tie the noose knot in such a way that the neck is snapped insuring a painless death. But if from now on the courts treat non-consent-painless-death as okay these hateful people will have legal ground to defend themselves if they can prove what knot was used. By all means my opponents descriptions of what happens to the body in a electrocution is true. But when a wet sponge is applied to the head the individual suffers through non of that because their brain is fried before their body goes through all of what my opponent described. But as my opponent said there minute points,and have drifted this debate off topic. I understand if the voting audience cast vote for my opponent in arguments as I have not fully understood exactly what my opponents has been arguing until round four so I will only have rebuttal to this round that my opponent cannot respond to. He is not defending all abortions match up with euthanasia. But since they are cases with similar defenses for abortion to euthanasia it should be those that are considered justified. or at least as justified as euthanasia is. How does one expect to argue against the 'special extreme cases' for two different practices? for in general abortions do not have the same set of contributing factors to the general contributing factors for the general cases of used euthanasia. But all these extreme situations like if you on an island and your friend is dieing and your diagnoses is they have no hope of recovery, and he hasn't even brought up the equally confusing if your on an island and your having a baby and don't know how to deliver it; they take different arguments for each case. all I can try to do is handle each in turn. For starters I will refute my opponents assertion that it is not fact that a child disability motivates thier parents. . http://www.nbc.com... I use this source to show that this a broader category to say that parents are aid cureing whatever ales their child than just becoming a scientist themselves. Trace Adkins works with a this particular charity because of his own child's allergies. when the wealthy decide to start giving to charities, you know what the only factors that really have any room to sway their choice in charity to donate too? the factors of if someone they know is affected by it. Their dad is a veteran, they donate to the veteran cause; is the celeb himself destined to remain in a wheel chair? they start the christever reeves foundation . http://www.christopherreeve.org... Let us say the next time a celeb has to choose a charity to support on the apprentice, if he/she has a child, or even a cousin or nephew/niece or aunt/uncle, ect, ect that has that very deseses that my opponent implied exist in the last round but failed to source (guess he was uncomfortable looking them up cause they make him question his religion). that charity research would get attaintion because of that connection. I don't remember asserting that a cure would be found in the lifetime of the child because I don't find that relevant, but your general problem about optimism over fact confuses me; talking about these extreme situations is not fact either but cynical or pessimistic. the discussion is all about the possibilities yet to happen, not the fact of what inevitably must happen. My opponents point about the expense of children did not directly address any of mine, only provide more extreme situations that are possible, but not unavoidable. Teenagers reading it ought to be offended by his slur against their fiscal habits with 'impulse' buy's and drugs. I went through my teenage years with neither of those. my opponent has a strange definition of the term 'fact' hear. None of this refutes the non-leagle tender value I brought up of having children nor the fact that these kids can take care of you when your old.