Abortion is nearly always wrong.

In the CON's first response, most of my arguments seem to stand with high risk as the mitigation was quite weak. Firstly, the CON essentially concedes that "Its only the beginning* of 'a life'. The CON makes a distinction that this is "opposed to the beginning* of all life so it is* not necessarily wrong if someone stops this beginning* of one life." However I would respond by saying: 1. This doesn't make much sense. If it is the beginning of a life vs. all life is irrelevant, so long as we start from the premise that all human lives should be valued equally. 2. It is the beginning of all life. You made this assertion, but it is simply wrong. 3. You have not provided an alternative "beginning of all life." If you provide your opinion as to where life begins in your next round, then we can perhaps debate about that specific instance. However, you have not suggested any different point at which life begins, which means it is best to go with the only consistent option on the table, at conception. Secondly, the CON makes the argument that we accept this when we use contraceptives we are doing essentially the same thing. I respond by saying: 1. This does not apply. Contraception is okay because it is not the termination of life. Basic biology can tell you that contraception takes effect BEFORE conception ever happens. This is unique because no life is ever created in the first place. This is very different from the scenario of abortion, which is the active termination of an already existent life. This is a pretty clear bright-line. Thirdly, the CON makes the argument that it is right because it is important to control how and when we have children. I respond by saying: 1. This does not justify killing a life. Let's say you had a child and then the 2008 recession hit, and posed massive burdens on your family to the point where it was unsustainable to continue supporting your child's life. This doesn't somehow give you the right to kill him/her. 2. This can be done by being more careful about having sex. Unfortunately it is a very risky endeavor, so for many it could be unexpected. However, this doesn't somehow make it okay. Now the CON moves on to respond the arguments I made concerning murder. Firstly, I think its extremely important to extend my interpretation of what murder is, because it seems that CON is attacking the wrong idea. There is an important distinction between 'murder' and 'killing'. That distinction is 'murder' evokes a sense of ethical responsibility, which makes it bad. Whereas, 'killing' can sometimes be justified. This is how I defined murder in my first speech. I said: "Murder is the purposeful, premeditated killing of an innocent life or a life that DOES NOT (I now realize I left those two important words out, but I'm sure you all understand that they should'e been there given the rest of the context in the sentence) pose an immediate harm to another. Murder is ALWAYS wrong." This definition shows that its okay to kill an individual like Hitler, or kill in self-defense, as these would not be classified as murder and don't evoke the same sense of ethical problem. Secondly, you're only true response of my argument is the couple of words you say: "well I do not think that abortion is the same thing as murder but ...". In your future rounds, I implore you to elaborate here or at least provide a counter-definition of either 'murder' or 'killing'. If we establish that life begins at conception and murder is taking of an innocent life. Then abortion would clearly fall under the term, 'murder'. Thirdly, it is true that our justice system rates 'murders'. However, I would argue that it actually rates 'killings'. This is why the three highest punishments are called: "First Degree Murder", "Felony Murder", and "Second Degree Murder". Notice how they all use the term murder, because it evokes that sense of ethical problem. However, the lesser ratings of killing are not really considered murder at all, but some level of punishment is still necessary, so the term "Homicide" or "Manslaughter" is used instead. The lowest rating is actually "Justifiable Homicide", which in fact has no punishment whatsoever. Overall, it seems the CON has replied sparsely providing general defense to both my points, but not going too in depth on anyone specifically. Perhaps the most important thing for the CON to do in the next round is to tell me where CON believes a life begins. Until then, CON's argument can logically not make sense. *-I usually used an asterisk to denote that I fixed the spelling in a quotation from CON.