Resolved: The Supreme Court case "Roe v. Wade" should be overturned.

I affirm.I would like to start with the technics. My opponent wants you to shrink her burden as much as possible. Remember that the burden that I set for the Con side that goes completely uncontested throughout the debate is to show that Roe v. Wade should be extended not ONLY for cases of rape, incest, or danger to health, but ALSo for intentioanl purposes. Look carefully at the arguments, and you realize that ALL of her arguments are defensive pleas with negligible evidence. She gives no unique reasons to support the Roe v. Wade proposition; the most offensive argument coming out of her case is the one that says that children are routinely denied decisions, but this isn't a REASON not to overturn Roe v. Wade. I am going to spend this last time I speak in this debate going over the voting issues in this round and stating why it is too late for Con to be eligible to win.As the framework, you should vote for the side that better upholds the Constitution. All of our moral systems, opinions, and policies revolve around the Constitution to an extent. Since my opponent does not respond to this framework, you should vote for the side that better adheres to Constitutional norms, which I show very clearly is my side.My opponent throws at you a lot of evidence regarding the definition of "life". Firstly, the Scripps Research Institute is engaged in basic biomedical science, which means that they are bound to be very fundamentally biased. Second, my opponent still disputes the existence of my definition of life. The fact of the matter is that you can perform a quick Google search and see that life is "The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, etc." Aborting a human child eliminates the capacity for growth! My opponent cannot deny that. What distinguishes animals from inorganic matter is that animals are conceived and will eventually grown into worthy individuals capable of making decisions for themselves. My opponent wants me to bound my definitions in major dictionaries, but she herself has biased sources that define life in very science-foscused manners. For fairness and an equal debate, I ask that you please remove my opponent from any ground that she has on the definitional debate. Regardless of how you define life - EVEN if you define it like my opponent wants you to - aborting a human child prevents him or her from making conscious decisions for himself, which I argue to be very seriously immoral.My opponent perpetuates this ageist argument, saying that children do not have rights under the law. Since I incontrovertibly won the definitional debate, unborn fetuses in a mother's womb still have life. They eventually grow to be complex human beings who contribute to society and pay tax dollars and create innovations and solve problems caused by previous generations. Taking away this ability from worthy human beings, denying the right of a human child to make billions and billions of choices for himself, and condoning immoral behaviors are such fundamentally flawed claims that my opponent continues to pull throughout the round. Just because children are denied choices in the current U.S. legal system does not mean that their lives are trivial. I shouldn't have to prove that "toddlers should be casting votes in our elections" in order to win this first voting issue; the fact of the matter is that a human being of any age will grow to have the same rights and responsibilities as a woman performing an abortion does, and it is not a woman's choice to determine the mortal fate of another individual. My opponent hasn't really explained how putting an innocent person to the death penalty is any different from putting an innocent baby to death.My opponent wants you to believe that I am putting words into her mouth. I do no such thing. She says that people should be able to have sex, and I agree. But they should be weary of the implications of their actions. If they FORGET condoms because they have been partying profusely or drinking irresponsibly, then there has to be some kind of learning lesson. Giving free, unlimited abortions to all women condones these behaviors and makes no effort to draw a line between responsible, protected sex and callous, unbounded sex. Do not let my opponent win on the second voting issue, because the way to prevent having an unintended child while still having sexual relations, which my opponent and I agree to be a right given to U.S. citizens, is to utilize birth control. My opponent says that birth control doesn't work; this is malarkey. In overturning Roe v. Wade, we can improve the quality of birth control and contraceptives so that abortion is never the resort of a woman who exercises good judgment and self-restraint.Imposing a fine or community service for aborting a human child that was the product of heavy drinking and unruly immaturity is not ridiculous. My opponent labels my arguments as "patently offensive". What I find patently offensive is that women take advantage of a fundamentally flawed system that allows them to exercise no sense of self-restraint whatsoever and yet give up human children to evade any kind of lesson being learned.My opponent has not sufficiently proven that abortion is a sex issue. Since having an abortion could entail issuing a community service requirement to both the man and the woman, there is no question of gender superiority or sexist policy. This argument is completely ridiculous. I have to argue that overturning the current policies in Roe v. Wade is a bad idea, not making all abortions illegal altogether. Don't let my opponent twist my burden into something it is not, because the burdens I constructed in Round 1 are sandbagged and unrefuted throughout the debate.Because my opponent makes no offensive arguments in support of Roe v. Wade, has invalid definitions of "life", and uses responses that don't uphold the Constitution, I urge the Pro ballot.