WODC: Voluntary Abortion should be legal

IntroductionI thank Con for her rebuttals. I will now present my own. Rebuttals1. Mistake's argumentNow Con just implies that abortion is wrong because "it ends the life" of the fetus. She didn't address any of my rebuttals of the argument or the murder issue. Then she accepts that she doesn't accept abortion, not even in cases of rape. Then Con implies that abortion is the direct cause of the death, even after I showed cases of abortion where it doesn't happen. And I also asked if it was a good idea to make a(n unnecessary) c-section to the woman and let the fetus die on his own.2. Bodily rightsCon seems not to understand the bodily rights' argument. Imagine two people, two adult living human beings. If person A needs a donation to survive, he can't force person B to donate his organs, his body, etc. But in no case B is killing A or affecting his right of life. Now in the case of abortion, the fetus has only one possible donor. If this possible rightly refuses to donate, then the fetus will die no matter what. This is not killing the fetus. Abortion never affects the right of life of a fetus.3. Abortion as reproductive rightHere Con continues with her arguments of murder without addressing my arguments and rebuttals. I never implied that the right "not to be pregnant" is more important than the right to life. Remember that abortion never affects the right to life of anyone. Abortion is just refusing to make a donation, which is just. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Sadly, if you don't believe that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, your argument has no grounds. I never tried to change your words, I just tried to represent what I understood about your point in the best way possible. Consent of "the possibility of pregnancy" doesn't make abortion wrong. Abortion is taking responsibility of the situation.4. SecurityCon claims that her sources are reliable because it has sources on it. Sorry, but that's not how sources work. I showed sources that anyone can read directly from the paper. Con is presenting a biased site with sources that I cannot read. There is no reason to believe Con got the data from other place than the biased site. And even if it was reliable, the source is only showing quotes in literature. I showed studies from respectable sources that contradict the quotes of some books I can't read. And the most important part is that it's still happening.5. "Argument 1"Here con implies that "abortion kills an innocent child" doesn't mean that abortion is not murder. Abortion is not a person, so Con is basically saying that the one that practice the abortion is killing an innocent child using abortion, which is false. Abortion is not the termination of the fetus. If the doctor terminates the pregnancy and doesn't kill the fetus, it will still be an abortion. Con is against killing the fetus, not abortion. She is doing another debate, not this one. After that Con drops all her other arguments. ConclusionCon was not able to rebut properly Pro's arguments. The summary of Con's argument is "Abortion kills a child and that's wrong". Pro rebutted Con's argument(s) and presented a solid case for the legalization of voluntary abortionThanks for the debate.