Abortion In General Should Be Illegal

First of all, I would like to point out that my opponent has given no argument for why abortion should remain legal. I am new to this site, but I do believe it is the duty of both sides to provide arguments supporting their case. I will assume that Con will give an argument supporting abortion in the next round. Rebuttals To The Rebuttals:1. First off, the point in offering definitions was to find common ground on which to debate. Since we both disagreed on the definition of child, I asked that we both refrain from using the word, so that we could focus more on the heart of the abortion debate and not on semantics. Secondly, if this debate were about what "encompasses" a child, or more specifically, what the word "child" encompasses. Then my opponent has made no rebuttal. The word "child" has multiple definitions that both include the unborn and exclude the unborn. In fact, there are two definitions given by the very dictionary Con cites:"1. a person of either sex between the time of birth and adolescence.2. an unborn or recently born human being; fetus; neonate; infant. "-Mosby's Medical Dictionarya) (. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...) Thus Con must give a logical argument supporting why the first definition of the word "child" supersedes the second definition of the word "child". He has thus far given no such argument. Rebuttal 2. Con has given a good argument against the (second) main point of my first claim. I will not continue debating it. However, he completely avoids my primary main point that the law should not be looked to for the authority on morality, and that if immoral laws exist, they should be remedied. Rebuttal 3. My opponent relies too heavily on one definition of the word "child". He has not yet given a logical reason for why that particular definition of the word "child" supersedes all others. "Thus, fetuses are not humans according to our definitions. "This sentence ignores the fact that A) I don't agree with his definition of child, or human being. And B) I specifically requested that we avoid using the word child in our arguments as to avoid an argument about semantics. "We must look toward my definition of "child" considering that it is much more credible than my opponent's"The second definition of the word "child" coming from the very source Con cited, supports my definition of "child". Cons argument is void. Rebuttal 5: "However, when it comes to granting rights, there is a single defining factor, and this is adherence to social contract. "I congratulate my opponent for presenting an argument for abortion that I have not yet heard. However, Con claims there is a single defining factor. How does Con know there is but a single defining factor? On what grounds does Con make this claim? Is Con making an argument based on current law? Or the current process by which laws are created? Does this not ignore that the law should not be looked to for the authority on morality? I urge the judges to consider these questions, and Con to give an answer. "The government provides protections while the people provide adherence to laws and sacrifice of total freedom. In order to acquire these protection is to be a member of this contract, which would include being a member of society, a condition that fetuses do not have. "Con's argument is far too ambiguous. Is he saying that no human being should be granted rights unless they can adhere to current law? What does he define "adhering to current law" to be? Also, does he imply that a fetus is not a member of society? In what way? I urge Con to clarify. Rebuttal 5. While Con makes a good point that I have not explained how the illegalization of abortion resulted in a drop of abortion rates, and I intend to remedy this in a bit, Con not only fails to cite sources for the evidence to support his rebuttal, but also makes a correlation without causation in regards to the statistics. For example:"Illegal abortions are incredibly dangerous and can cause an increase in abortion rates"First of all:"Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physician. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind…Second, and even more important, the conference [on abortion sponsored by Planned Parenthood] estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians…Whatever trouble arises usually arises from self-induced abortions, which comprise approximately 8 percent, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of non-medical abortionist…So remember…abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians. "-Dr. Mary S. Calderone, a former director of Planned Parenthood, written in 1960. a)Secondly, Con has not explained how making abortion illegal can cause an increase in abortion rates. In Con's words: "Correlation without causation". Making Abortion Illegal Decreases Abortion (The Correlation):Ireland made abortion illegal. When it became illegal, people heard about it on the news. After becoming pregnant, many Irish women probably contemplated getting an abortion, but because they didn't want to go to jail, or get fined, they did not get an abortion. At first, there were the few that still wanted to get an abortion, so they left the country. However, after a while the country began to accept the abortion laws and the women stopped having unprotected intercourse, or stopped having intercourse completely except for with men they intended to have children with. Though simplistic, I hold to this correlation. (Lol)Rebuttal 6: In what way is it not just to force a women to carry a pregnancy to term? Let us examine this scenario. Yes, it is horrific that a woman has gotten pregnant by means of rape. And yes, it is sad that she is going to experience suffering for the 9 months that she carries her child. But we must ask ourselves these questions:Is the child guilty of any crimes? The answer is no. What is morally superior? The relative nine months of the mother's life consumed by her pregnancy? Or the entire lifetime of the unborn child? Can the law truly call itself just if it favors the comfort of one person over the life of another? Rebuttal 7: My opponent once again relies too heavily on semantics. I meant "general" in this definition of the word: "6. Being usually the case; true or applicable in most instances but not all"-The American Heritage Dictionary.