Early abortion should be legal

Freedom not restricted unless justified: I will go along with what my opponent is saying. We need to have a good enough reason to stop people from doing something. The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is false and not all killing is murder: While I did agree that killing can be justified, my opponent has failed to establish that abortion is not murder. In my opening argument, I established that what makes someone have the right to life is the fact that they are human. And the human that resides in the womb of a mother has not done anything to deserve death. Basically, my argument was that killing someone that is human makes it murder unless the human has done something that would make their rights nonexistent. Bodily rights/autonomy: I think there was a misunderstanding here. I wasn't saying that there was no such thing as bodily rights, but unless they can back up that claim objectively, then their argument falls apart. My opponent says "I did make the argument that rights derive from our own interests/desires, but more importantly taking Cons denial approach means rape, kidnapping people and taking a kidney have not done something wrong, since there was no bodily rights to be violated in the first place. The huge problem with their argument is that if rights come from our own interest, then that also means that the rapist and the kidnapper also get to define what rights we have. And that is the problem with my opponents argument. If rights do not objectively exist, then you can't say that a woman has objective bodily rights and you couldn't say (objectively) that the rapist and the kidnapper was wrong. Then my opponent says "So Con has two choices here, either accept we do have such a bodily rights or double down into Cons brave new world where such bodily rights are denied and let the rapeing and theft of kidneys begin." But here is what I was trying to point out last round. My opponent is the one who can't prove that we have objective rights and they can't say that the rapist and the kidnapper was objectively wrong. Now it is time to support my assertion that humans have a right to life. While my opponent has failed to show that rapist and killers objectively do things that are wrong and while they have failed to objectively establish that women have bodily rights, I can do this. Like Thomas Jefferson, I am a believer that rights are endowed by God. If rights come from a God, they would objectively exist. God, just like Jefferson said, gave us the right to life. Otherwise, there would be no rights at all and my opponent would have no argument for bodily rights. But since they have asserted that women have bodily rights, they have to prove that this is true. And if they decide to deny the existence of rights altogether, then their whole argument falls apart and this debate comes down to me showing that rights exist objectively. It was then stated that "In using a mother"s body against her will, a fetus carries out exactly this kind of aggression. It may have the rights of an adult, but surely we would not permit an adult to use another person"s body as a life support system against her will. Such action would warrant violent self-defense even if it were carried out without malign intent. The mother therefore may remove a fetus from her body if it is violating her rights in this fashion. Neither she nor anyone else is bound by the fetus"s inability to survive independent of the mother; it does not have a positive right to life." I have already made an argument for why humans have a positive right to life. But my opponent can address that whenever they feel like it. That said, it is ridiculous to say that the mother has these rights when my opponent can't even establish that these bodily rights objectively exist. My opponent has made up these rights and cannot objectively support them. I on the other hand have shown that objective rights, if they exist would have to come from a God. That said, the right to kill a baby would not be one of them. No where will you see a God affirming abortion. At least, I can't think of any. Another problem is the whole thing about self defense. In most cases, people have sex and have a baby. The baby didn't choose to be made. It was the fault of the parents. And in cases of rape, the baby is not attacking the women. The rapist did the violating. But the baby had just as much choose in the matter as the women did. So therefore the self defense argument does not hold up. No conflict of rights/interests in the embryonic period: If rights derive from the interests of people, then that means the rapists also get to decide what rights people have. My opponent's argument just does not hold up. If there is an objective right to life, then the human embryo gets that right as well. Unjust Burden Argument: I have not just assumed that abortion was murder. I spent my whole opening argument proving that being human makes you have the right to life. I also explained why an embryo would be deserving of these rights as well. On the other hand, my opponent has done nothing showing that abortion isn't murder. A case for unequal value: My opponent didn't read my rebuttal properly. I said that there would only be time to save one child in the sink hole. Then my opponent says something astonishing. They claim that "yes we may take such action, even saving our own 1 child over 4 not our own child, this only shows that when our emotions & something more primal is influencing our decision our rationality gets compromised." That is exactly what I was trying to prove. While someone might save the child instead of the 100 embryos, this wouldn't show that the embryos weren't human and vice versa. This would only show that the emotions of a person impacts their decision. If early abortion is murder (reducto argument): I never said that the women who was raped should be put to death. Though, I did say that in some cases the women should be put to death for having an abortion. I said it depended on the circumstance. If the women was clearly a sick baby killer, she should be put to death. But I never mentioned anything about rape in that particular situation. The problem is that my opponent keeps focusing on rape cases (or extreme cases) which leads me to believe that they don't really have a good argument here. If you can only talk about extreme cases, then you don't got much going for you. Consequences of abortion being made illegal: My opponent clarifies and says that if abortion is made illegal, the price is serious injury and death. But this is in only extreme cases where the mother will drink bleach or etc...And actually, nobody pays attention to the fact that abortion also has a chance of killing the mother. So I am curious if the examples where mothers hurt themselves due to abortion being made illegal are just as common as abortions harming the mother. Personhood: My opponent ignores my argument about the personhood since being human is apparently irrevalent. They bring up aliens to support their argument to show that my argument was "speciesist," but this was already addressed in my opening round. I also will look forward to my opponents next response. Sources: http://realchoice.blogspot.com... https://www.google.com... http://www.abortionfacts.com...