Abortion

Thanks for responding. Rebuttal I. I believe my opponent made it easier for me. He said "Murder is defined as the UNLAWFUL killing of a person. " I would like for him to tell me what law prohibits a mother from terminating her Fetus? It's her body, not my opponent's nor mines is hers. Unfortunately for him she has the final decision. Which is why abortion is legal in the United States. Since January 1973, because the Supreme Court understood that it is up to woman to make the final decision and going against that will be unlawful. Rebuttal II. My opponent states that Abortion can never be justified. So rape does not justify the reason why a women would want an abortion? My opponent also states that rape is very low and very rare. Does that mean it does not occur? Rebuttal III. I believe my opponent is not reading my rebuts thoroughly I did not mean dreams are hope. I mean that there are kids which lose all hope because of the situation they are living in. Rebuttal IIII. Exactly my opponent is stating that they dream and he states that dreams are defined as the succession of images, idea, emotions and sensation in sleep. How can fetus have a succession of images when he hasn't seen anything but pitch blackness, where does he get ideas from? Rebuttal V. I am not assuming that you are against smoking & drinking but you stated that abortion causes cancer making it seem that we should make abortion illegal because it causes cancer. So does cigarettes should we ban those as well my dear friend? Rebuttal VI. "However, in cases of abortion, the woman not only hurts herself voluntairly, but also kills a person that is defenseless, inoccent, and has no way to voice his/her concent on the murder. " I tell my opponent to do his research. Murder is the unlawful killing from one human being to another. A fetus is not considered a human being to the Government because it does not know It's own rights nor can it demand them. Yet a woman can. Plus how is it a murder when a fetus have no legal rights? Since Roe v. Wade case in 1973 the Supreme Court was able to define that the pre-born were not citizens therefor they have no rights. My opponent is clearly claiming his statements by feelings and his morals yet I ask him to please start debating by what's fact and lawful. Rebuttal VII. No, what I believe is we have enough kids without parent's in adoption homes I certainly doubt that we need more children without a mother nor a father. Rebuttal VIII. I feel silly rebutting this because is kind of silly but never the less. Those rights are given to citizens of the United States, and since 1973 the Supreme Court It's self came to the decision that pre-born are not citizens. Therefor those rights are not in action for them. Conclusion II. You are seriously incorrect. I believe in pro choice meaning I believe there is no one in this world that can deny women the right's of choice over their own body. Even if my personal idea is that abortion is incorrect. My opponent ends up stating "What is legal is NOT always right. " He is speaking through his personal opinions and what he believes is morally correct. When I debate I talk about it with a political stance not paying attention with my personal feelings. I recommend my opponent does the same. I conclude with this again no one can deny a true citizen of It's rights & since 1973 in this situation the only citizen is the women not the fetus. I'd like for my opponent to stop making the accusation of calling woman murderer's which go through the process of abortion since that can be a very hurtful thing. I'd also like to tell my opponent wether is legal or not woman will still have abortions why, because God gave the right to woman of having control of their body and their life. Woman's should never be deprived of the freedom of choice.