There is no reasonable, non-religious reason for abortion to be illegal.

My opponent has for some reasons unfortunately forfeited his second round. I hope he comes back and engages in what is left of this debate. Now, in proving my case that there are non-religious but still also reasonable reasons to support the view that abortion should illegal, I will give one argument. That is, the future argument. After that, I will refute some of the objections to this argument. The Future Argument Premise 1: A fetus will become a human being in the future. Premise 2: It is illegal to kill a human being. Conclusion: Therefore, it should be illegal to kill a fetus (i.e., Abortion). Premise 2 is very obvious. In USA, and in almost all other countries, killing a human being (unless it is for self defense etc) is completely illegal. If someone kills a human being, he or she will get in prison their whole life or at least in a very long time. You may even get the death penalty. Now, if a fetus is a human or not is irrelevant. I will not argue that a fetus is a human. I will however argue that even if a fetus is not a human yet, it has the full potential to become one. A fetus is basically a future human being. The fetus will become a human, so by killing it you are not even allowing it the right to become a human and have a life. What's the difference between killing a fully human and a fetus which is in it's way to become a fully human? And what right do we have to kill a fetus which will become a fully human in the future? By killing a fetus, we are doing nothing but depriving him or she of their future and life. You are basically taken one's right to even have a chance to live, have a life, and a future. I see this as worse than killing someone which had the chance to at least live in a while. By killing a fetus, you are not even giving it a chance to become a human being and even live for one minute. I and you who are reading this right now was once a fetus and thus, if it is was wrong to kill me and you now, it was wrong to kill me and you then. In fact, if you had killed me when I was a fetus, I would not even have the chance to be here right now and talk to you. Don Marquis, probably the founder of this argument, says: 'The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sakes or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future.' [1] Since fetuses have the same kind of future that we do and will become fully grown humans like us, and since it is wrong to kill innocent humans and to deprive them of their futures, it follows that it is wrong to kill fetuses and thereby rob them of what is of the greatest value to them; Their own life and future. The objections to this argument There are many objections to this argument. Although I would love to refute all of those objections because they are all so weak and flawed, I unfortunately can't because of limited space. Therefore, I will only refute the 5 most common objections to this argument. Objection 1: The fetus is not a person Some people says that a fetus is not a person. Therefore, it is acceptable or morally right to kill it. Three questions must be asked first: 1) Which features of personhood characterize the human person? 2) In which authority can someone say what is a person and not? 3) Define what makes a person? The fact of the matter is that there many different opinions of what it means to be a person, and what a person is is not a legal question but a question which is to be decided within many different and specific ethics. Moreover, even if a fetus is not a person yet (I'm saying yet since the fetus will become and has the full potential to become a person), does that mean that it doesn't have the right and chance to become a fully grown human person and have a life and future like us? Absolutely not. Even if the fetus is not a person yet, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have the right and chance to become a person and have a life like us. Thus, even if a fetus is not a person or a human yet, it should still not be killed and deprived of it's chance and right to become a person and a human being. Objection 2: The fetus is a part of the woman Because of that, she can do whatever she likes with it. However, this is far from the truth. The unborn fetus within the pregnant woman’s body is not part of her body. The fetus is a genetically distinct entity with its own unique and individual gender, blood type, bone-structure, and genetic code.[2] So although the fetus is attached to its mother, it is not part of her. Objection 3: Self ownership Someone also brings up the self ownership objection. Because the fetus is owned by the women, she has the right to do whatever she likes with it. That may be true in regards to her car or house for example. However, the right to self ownership cannot justify killing a fetus which will become a human being and have a future and life like us. Just like it doesn't justify to for example kill our pets just because we own them. Objection 4: The fetus doesn't feel pain Because of that, some people argue that it is acceptable to kill the fetus. First of all, how do we really know that a fetus doesn't feel pain when it is killed? What is the evidences for such a claim? These two are those questions which people who believe in this claim must answer first. I myself cannot see how someone can really prove that something doesn't feel pain. At least not a fetus. Moreover, even if the fetus doesn't feel pain when it is being killed, that doesn't justify killing it and depriving it's right to a life and a future. Just like it doesn't justify killing some fully grown humans who doesn't feel pain, like for example those disabled or those in comas. Objection 5: The right to have freedom of choice Many defenders of abortion argue that if the woman choice to take a abortion, then she should have the right to do that. Thus, if you don't allow women to take abortion, you are denying women's rights on their freedom of choice. That however doesn't mean anything more than that it puts the woman's personal interests and comfort above the value of a unborn baby's life. Indeed, that it is not denying a woman's rights anymore than not having the right to murder or steal. Moreover, If we are to follow this logic then people should also be allowed to rape or steal as long as those people did it by their own free choice. Hence, this objection is nothing more than a illogical failure. Conclusion Abortion is murder no matter when a person believes life becomes official. The fact that a potential life has ended before given a chance remains evidence enough for most people to understand why a person should never have a choice of whether a fetus should live or die. It is our natural property to have a future and a life. Killing a fetus destroys this natural and very important right, because by killing the fetus you are also killing it's chance to have a future and a life. A fetus has the full potential to become a human being and have a future like us. We have no right whatsoever to take that away from them. I have given a non-religious but also still a reasonable reason (The future argument) as to why abortion should be illegal. Thus, Con's false claim that there are no reasonable, non-religious reasons for abortion to be illegal, is refuted. Indeed, the conclusion stands strong: There are reasons which are non-religious but also still reasonable for abortion to be illegal. Sources [1] http://introductiontophilosophy.com... [2] http://www.christiananswers.net...