the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

I didn't really feel that I was arguing semantics. I mean, the resolution is clearly about the fetus's rights 'trumping' the mother's. I do not think that a pregnancy is about the mother not getting "what she wants," it is about her rights being put aside to accommodate an unborn child's. No woman should be forced to sacrifice her rights for someone else's sake.A good analogy is this: A healthy person cannot be forced to give a kidney to someone who needs one; it is part of their body and they must consent. Similarly, a woman cannot be forced to give up her entire body for nine months, either. You may argue that she consented by having sex. However, she consented to simply that: intercourse. Pregnancy cannot result without sexual relations, but a person can engage in intercourse without getting pregnant - chance, birth control, etc. She obviously did not consent in the formal understanding to pregnancy since she is willing to end it.It doesn't really matter what the implications of my argument are. I am simply arguing that a fetus's rights are not more important than a mother's. But yes, I do think late-term abortions should be legal. It shouldn't matter to voters, though."she 1. assumed the risk of pregnancy and 2. didn't abort when it was morally grayer when she had ample opportunity."1. Another way to tackle this is showing that a risk does not entail consequences in the way my opponent argues. Here is analogy: if you go skydiving, you assume the risk of your parachute not opening. That is inherent in the activity just as pregnancy is with sex. However, if one's parachute does fail, one can simply use the backup chute. Or, he/she can get assistance from a fellow participant. In this way, the skydiver can avoid the consequences (death) of the risk (parachute failure) by seeking an alternative solution (a backup or another person). Similarly, the mother can avoid the consequences (more months of pregnancy or the pain of childbirth) of the risk (sex) by seeking an alternative solution (abortion). 2. This has some merit, but in reality, the government should not legislate morality since morals are often personal and differ between everyone. This is clear in the fact that we are debating abortion. Therefore, moral 'gray' areas should not be subject to empirical laws and limits that take one group's standards and apply them to everyone. It's not fair. The government shouldn't restrict later abortions nor punish those who attempt to obtain them. Additionally, the same case applies where the woman's rights are being subjugated to the fetus's which is unequal treatment and cannot be reasonably sanctioned by law.In response to the analogy: The difference here is that the person in the hypothetical accident had the same rights as you prior to the accident: life, liberty, health, and so on. The accident caused you to essentially take away his/her rights. Before the analogous accident (sex) the fetus had no rights at all since it didn't even exist. If the hypothetical accident suddenly spawned a person that attached itself to you, I would argue that it should be killed because its very existence is causing your rights to be violated. The other person existed beforehand and therefore was not inherently transgressing.If there are any points here that my opponent wants to address or wants me to expand upon, I invite her to state so in the next round.