The law concerning abortion rights for Americans, should stay the way it is.

To answer my opponents first question, I would rather warn the people to get off the damn tracks. But in all seriousness, I would agree with killing one to save the two. I wonder what this is meaning to convey? Are you saying that in having the (one) child, it would kill both the parents (two)? That is nonsensical. By admitting that the different time periods during one's life(even the zygote/blastocyst period) I mentioned in Round 1, ARE INDEED stages in one's life("My opponent's argument is that a human being should not be killed at any stage in his/her life."), it would seem as though he agrees with me that life begins at conception. Correct me if I am wrong. The next hypothetical regarding a rape victim is, out of all the possible hypothetical situations in the abortion subject, probably the hardest to defend in favor of not aborting the child. But we have to remember that the fetus*, even one being a result of rape, is still a life. It is not the baby's fault that his/her mother was raped. Is it just to punish or kill the innocent? And if "she does not want the baby", why can she not consider the method of adoption? Next, according to what my opponent says the girl would do next, go to a "back ally" abortion clinic, the fetus will, of course, definitely die, and the girl will definitely be harmed. In his words: "This will kill the baby and harm the girl." My opponents purpose in providing this scenario is to convince me that, girls, when they get pregnant and don't want to be pregnant, will 100% of the time get an abortion, so why not have "clean" and "safe" abortion clinics, so that the girl is not harmed? How can we assume that the girl is definitely going to get harmed in this back-alley procedure. Now don't think I'm in support of this method. But, I definitely fail to see the logic in saying: because we can't stop people from murdering, we might as well make it easier for them. It seems parallel to saying- we should legalize cocaine, because cocaine-addicts are going to get their cocaine one way or another. How is it different from saying- we should legalize rape, because rapists are going to find a victim one way or another. With my opponents second example, I once again ask why adoption cannot be an option? If you get the baby adopted, then it will have no bearing on yours' or your girlfriends' life. You're Pro-Choice, I'm Pro-Adoption. The next thing my opponent says bothers me a great deal. He says that having the baby under these conditions would ruin the BABY'S life. So, does that mean getting an abortion and ending it's life would NOT ruin his/her life? It would definitely ruin my life to be killed at any point, so how can this be any different? I, for one, would rather lead a 'crappy' and/or 'poor' life than not leading one at all. I don't think you can generalize and speak for all young girls in that they will do anything they can to abort the baby. While some may be very unhappy with their situation, if they understand that they are killing someone(their own child!), then perhaps they will think twice before making this decision. Basically, I do not agree that any circumstance justifies in killing an innocent human being**. My opponent has made no effort to argue the point of the qualifications to be considered a human... so bluntly put, is he okay with killing the innocent? I know he is not, so how can his two hypothetical situations be anything but dismissed? *Although a human does not become a "fetus" until the 8th week after, I will use the term interchangeably with the term before this point, to retain simplicity. **Unless, of course, you can indeed save two lives at the cost of one. But no situation has been presented to me in which this is the issue.