Debate: Should abortion be illegal?
Side: Yes

My position is certainly clear [...]Agreed; I never suggested otherwise.[...] and the argument is coherent; I stated before that a woman should have complete autonomy over her own body and what she chooses to do with it , it is up to her entirely how she deals with the fetus;I have already explained why your (earlier) argument lacks coherence. You still have not directly addressed that counter-analysis, despite repeated opportunity to do so. It is not an unfair conclusion at this point that you cannot do so. the fetus is reliant on the woman for sustenance over which it has no right.This is a new argument. Previously you were arguing that the woman has a right because she carries the fetus. Now you are arguing that because the fetus is reliant upon the woman it has no rights. However, you give absolutely no reason to suppose that reliance upon another means one has no rights. Not only is this an incomplete argument (again), but common social and legal practice directly undermine your unsubstantiated assertion that reliance means one has no rights. Parents and guardians are regularly held socially and legally accountable for the well-being of their reliant minors precisely on account of those minors' reliance upon them. It is their reliant status which confers rights and protections to them, rather than causing them to have no rights at all. Therefore, it is very clearly the case that reliance not only does not revoke rights but creates them.Your counter evidence and counter claim are merely your opinion [...]My counter evidence was from a report by the United Nations. You could only construe that as being my opinion if you are being deliberately disingenuous or lack elementary critical thinking skills (and I know where I'd put my money).The rest of my claim was substantiated by an argument concerning (among other things) the distinction between theory and practice, which you have never addressed. Asserting that it is only my opinion fails to demonstrate in what way that opinion is unsound or invalid.[...] and have absolutely no bearing on what lawmakers term absolute rights so I dismiss them totally as your rationale is faulty to say the least [...]Despite your protestations, you clearly are using your earlier rationale to put forward an argument here. This is the very appeal to governmental authority which I preemptively addressed, and you may refer to the argument I have already made in response to this.you childishly state even if there was such a thing as an absolute right that doesn't mean there should be and abortion should not be and this is just because you say so .The existence of an absolute right does not automatically mean that it should exist, not because I say so but because logically there is no reason that the latter follows from the former. Again, you are arguing from tautologies that presume your conclusion without ever proving anything.I also never said that abortion should not be, and have already explicitly said I support legalized abortion. What I actually said was that even if there are absolute rights it does not necessarily follow that abortion should also be an absolute right. That is, again, not just because I say so but because the laws of logic require such connections be proved. Your points were indeed addressed your failure to recognise that is something you need to work on Petty and unoriginal ad hominem doesn't help your case.