Abortion should be legal

I am aware of the definition of should, my opponent offers no value criterion for which the voters can judge who sufficiently the debate. My question is why should the government the government. My opponent has offered no criterion to narrow the scope of the debate. For example if I prove late term abortions should be illegal do I win the debate and negate your criterion? If I prove that a fetus is alive do I win the debate? There is no value criterion for which voters should judge who really won. I propose that the criterion be whoever argued most effectively since no particular aspect of abortion has been focused upon. My opponent stated that: " It cannot "learn". It cannot "feel" for most of its life." I have proved this assertion to be incorrect and my opponent agreed that the evidence was sufficient and that other intelligent animals learn by listening to sounds as well: "Let me mention that animals ....do this as well" As the reader can clearly see my opponent agrees that a fetus can and does learn through sound as is a universal (I assume my opponent refers to worldly as we are not in contact with alients just yet). "if your father lapses..." The argument is fallacious: When you give birth to a child, they are not fully fledged men/women, productive in society, able to fend for themselves My opponent ignores an unemployed father who does not have enough in savings to pay for the machines which keep him alive. My opponent fails to recognize that most men/women on the planet do not have so much in savings and that others must foot the bill for the life sustaining machines. Therefore the logical syllogism is perfectly analgous. My opponent has previously defined non-life as: "cannot live independently" He therefore must define life as "living independently". Anyone who depends upon machines is not alive and should be allowed to die without any consequences. People in coma's cannot learn, they cannot feel, and so a wife of a coma victim has the right to pull the plug on her husband even if he has a certainty of living in 9 months. I will repeat the example which my opponent has failed to refute. If your father lapses into a coma, doctors say he will fully recover in 9 months with no damage, but he has a 1 million insurance policy and your mother decides to pull the plug, it's not legal, it's not an option that should be available to everyone. It's murder. My opponent has not shown what part of this analogy is not analogous. He has called it fallicious but has failed to provide a fallacy. My opponent attempts to redefine life this time as "being a productive member of society" Bizzarely enough he calls a computer a useless tool which makes no sense at least to me? If this is truely his defintion then he expands the realm of zombies in his imaginary world to anyone who does not pay taxes or give to charity, which is most of the country. He attempts to give a justification that the cost of a human is reasoning to abort them. If this is his criterion then my opponent must also expand his legalization of abortion to a legalization of murdering those who take more tax dollars than they receive as they are a detriment to society. My opponent uses an uncited about.com article as a source for the failure rate of birth control marking the effective rate at 91% This is incorrect as the correct rate is 99.99% "Women take the pill by mouth to prevent pregnancy, and when taken correctly, is up to 99.9% effective." SOURCE: http://www.webmd.com... I agree with his failure rate for condoms. It is this incorrect number that artificially inflates his final figure by millions. 307,006,550 * 0.000015(.0001*.15) = 4,605 Abortions My numbers were off but actually in the opposite direction which was due to being conservative and not including the extra .09 in the numbers About.com does not overturn WebMD on medical matters. Actual Number of Abortions in the US: 827,000 I also pose the question to my opponent how it's a strawman to clearly show how ridiculous his definition of death is? My opponent throughout the course of the debate has provided bogus facts, skewed studies (where he only provided a part of the evidence to lie)[1], and dubious sources[2]. He has completely ignored some points[3] while he has accused an argument of being fallacious/not analogous when it was not so[4]. My opponent has shown that his only real criterion is to eliminate the poor by killing them.[5] He has not proved that a fetus alive and his definition of life would classify most of the humans on the planet of being not alive[6]. My opponent has been proven wrong on his incorrect conjecture that fetuses cannot learn[7]. My opponent has been proven wrong that it is incorrect to classify life with the development of the body as it continues developing for 20 years after birth[8] I have proven that life with certain potential is still life[9] He lied and accused my mathematical proof of having any citation when it had 5[10] Sources: 1. Opponent: "Only 8% of women who have abortions do not use any form of birth control, and most say they don't use it as a form of contraceptive. " Real Survey: "46% did not use contraception during the month they became pregnant 8% never used a method of birth control 47% have had at least one previous abortion" 2. http://womenshealth.about.com... 3. Defining abortion as a termination of cells when murder can be defined by the same definition R1 "2. Nuking Japan is the termination of cells. Cells are not alive. Therefore Nuking Japan has no real impact. If Nuking Japan has no real impact, than everyone should be able to have it as an option." 4. ANALOGY: Similarly if your father lapses into a coma, doctors say he will fully recover in 9 months with no damage, but he has a 1 million insurance policy and your mother decides to pull the plug, it's not legal, it's not an option that should be available to everyone. It's murder. "The argument is fallacious: When you give birth to a child, they are not fully fledged men/women, productive in society, able to fend for themselves" A. Fails to provide a fallacy B. Attempts to justify the murder with the cost of caring for the child while ignoring the cost to sustain the father which will be just as expensive C. Fails to overturn the analogy based on my opponents condition of life: mental state and independence (of which the coma victim has neither). 5. "This makes 300,000 more drains on society; people with no productive value at all. The opposition also rests on the laurel that humanity has an intrinsic value. This needs to be justified before trying to rebut this point." 6. "ALL that abortion is is the termination of cells. Yes, killing a human being is a termination of cells. Just as, say, this computer produces heat. There are other things involved in its process. A human being is a productive member of society. A computer is a useless tool." AKA paying more tax than taking tax money. A. Includes most children under the age of 16-18, mentally retarded, 50% of families in the country paying no tax, coma victims, senior citizens living off of social security. B. As the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes which are spent mainly on the lower 90%, then 90% of the country is unproductive http://www.heritage.org... C. Does not name the "other things" or come to any definition of life or definition of humanity. 7. "A fetus cannot learn" "The research suggests that while still in the womb, our brains were learning speech patterns and laying the groundwork for language acquisition." http://abcnews.go.com... 8. The human body is not fully developed until puberty, the brain until the late 20s 9. Coma analogy, proving that under my opponent's definition of life, a fetus is alive as it can both learn and development is constantly occuring 10. http://www.plannedparenthood.org...... http://advocatesforyouth.org...... http://www.mathgoodies.com...... http://www.google.com...... http://www.cdc.gov...... Real citations above in R1 under the large bolded number 780,950