"This doesnt work, since human rights arent determined by government, but by logical debate where they are established."
There is no difference. Political debates take place to resolve these issues as well as being the catalyst to grant rights to women.
In which it has been established in those countries for women that do not have the right which is sound.
"Same applies to religion. As for personal will, that doesnt take away right to abortion, which still exists."
Let's go over the definition of someone having a right to something in this topic. Having a right is simply what is allowed by law.
Like you have a right to an attorney. You're well within your legal grounds for a lawyer. Now when the lawyer fails you and you go to prison, you do not have a right to leave the prison. That right has been taken away unless you've been exonerated. I hope we're clear now.
"Countries that allow abortions do care more about liberty, quality of life, pain. My opponent must disprove them."
Disprove them on what?
"Unborn is attached to woman, feeds on woman's body, causes woman pain, endangers her life, lowers life quality.
My opponent doesnt merely need to argue that abortion is immoral, but that right to abortion is immoral.
Example, if not having right to abortion causes even more harm, then having right to abortion is moral."
I'll ask the question this way. If it is deemed that the unborn has rights, isn't it justified to violate the rights of the woman to avoid violating the unborn's rights first?
Now if you don't answer yes or no to that, the opposing side is forfeiting to answer to avoid a display of bias .
"Thats the position you must prove, not ask me to argue a point you didnt even make. Arguments, not questions."
The opposing side forfeits another answer. The government gives you the right and the government can take it away which proves who has control and what you truly don't own. You don't have an innate right that somebody can give or take away .
That's why one country has given the right , another has not. Leaving an existence of women that do not have the right to abortion(notwithstanding exceptions).
Just on that one point alone, makes the topic statement true.
Case might as well be closed right here.
"Neither marriage neither driving a motor vehicle are equal to abortion. So comparison fails by difference in different situations."
I said nothing about equality. The comparison is a person having a right to each. Did you get it now or did you miss the point again?
"If someone else decided that woman has right to abortion, then follows that woman has right to abortion."
Sure, just not a human right nor will she have it in any of the reasons I listed off .
You can give your closing statements next round. Your done .
Please actually read what I say and understand it people. For instance, A sound reason a woman has no right to abortion could be based on her religion. Another based on her personal convictions. These are sound reasons aren't they? These avenues give her no right . She takes away her own right leaving her no right by her volition.
Do we understand this?
" Women don't have right of abortion , as the unborn child in her body actually not only her but also child of man.
0.5 (from women) + 0.5 (from man) = 1 new kid
unborn child is not the property of women , who take decision about it "
Rational Gladiators that's just my theory and it applicable only in some situation and in some my theory is wronge.
Ugh, I wanted to take this debate, if anyone wants to do, I'd like to (I would have to be pro-choice tho).