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

I see that my opponent has grown rather impassioned over the course of this debate. I believe that I have stated my arguments in a clear, well-constructed manner. I have provided citations where appropriate and have continuously referred back to the U.S. Constitution throughout. I can give no credence to the words my opponent insists on attributing to me. I urge the judges to compare what I am accused of saying with what I have actually said, rather than allowing my opponent to twist and obfuscate my statements into some sort of rant against morality. Although I stand firm that I do not believe the burden is mine to prove why something that currently is legal should remain legal, I acknowledge the repeated requests by my opponent to do so. I answer as follows: 1) In order to ban an act, we must prove that it should be illegal for the good of society. We must show it causes credible harm upon other society members. In order to do that, we would have to show that the unborn child is a "society member." My opponent has consistently failed to do this. His first attempt was to simply define life in such a way as to support his arguments. I have provided multiple citations and definitions contrary to his own and challenged him to provide even one citation in support of his own definition. He cannot do so. His second attempt regarded usage of the "due process" clause of the U.S. Constitution. I pointed out how this was an incorrect and inapplicable usage of such. He has no other arguments on the table. Therefore, if the act of abortion causes no credible harm upon other society members, it should not be banned. 2) My opponent continues to refer to women being held accountable for having sex, as though it were a criminal act. He has talked about "irresponsibility" and "immaturity" and "drunken, unprotected sex." Again, I call out this unfair characterization of a woman who faces an unplanned pregnancy. It is inaccurate, inappropriate, misogynistic, and offensive. Beyond that, I will not give further weight to my opponent's declarations regarding the "immorality of women". 3) Finally, my opponent desperately wants me to argue that Roe v. Wade should be extended not only for cases of rape, incest, or danger to health, but also for intentional purposes. I state that it is already such, and I should not have to defend it, and I have also explained why it should remain such (i.e. that no crimes are committed, no harm to society, no deprivation of Constitutional rights.) In addition, I have explained why banning elective abortions could potentially be unconstitutional, imposing a punishment, a risk of health and life, upon women who have committed no crime. So, as for final judgments of this debate, I urge you to consider carefully all that you have read. My opponent is correct that the Constitution should be the framework for our arguments, and I would suggest that my opponent's only references to it are done incorrectly and without regard for the actual meaning or usage of those sections, while I have endeavored to ensure my own are proper and correct. Since my references go unchallenge, I can only assume the point is conceded. Therefore, I should win based on the correct usage of the proposed framework. Additionally, my opponent is correct in stating that I "throw at you a lot of evidence." Thank you for acknowledging that. I believe "evidence" is a much stronger foundational block than arguing ambiguous morals. I am accused of "ageism" for asserting that the law does not apply equally to children and adults. This is not ageism, which is a form of bias. This is FACT, sir. Finally, it is said that I have "not sufficiently proven that abortion is a sex issue." I believe my opponent intends the word sex to mean "gender" in this instance. As such, I ask my opponent how many men have abortions? If Roe v. Wade were overturned, how many men would be forced, by law, to complete the term of an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy? How many men die in childbirth every year? How many men suffer serious health complications from pregnancy? This is as much a gender issue as it is possible to be, by the very nature of the issue. To argue otherwise is truly ridiculous. Because my opponent has completely failed to provide even one logical, cohesive argument as to why Roe v. Wade should be overturned, I urge a vote for the CON side of this debate. Thank you for your time and attention.