Abortion is bad and should be largely illegal

My opponent makes his first point of rebuttal by stating that "My point is not to say that if you agree with my opponent, then you might as well go around killing those who are dependent. My point is that the logic that justifies abortion also justifies far more" in regards to my claim that his original argument dangerously resembled a slippery slope fallacy. However, this is not the case. Some points of logic are similar but different. My opponent has chosen the example of individuals in a coma, but it is fallacious to make direct correlation assumptions regarding ethics applying to human beings (or at least previous human beings, as one might argue for those in a coma without the hope of recovery) and potential human beings (the fetus). This debate is not about whether euthanasia or physician-assisted suicides are morally permissible. Therefore, to dismiss my opponent"s claim of logical correlation between abortion and euthanasia we need make no further distinction than these two: [1] that individual"s facing euthanasia are/have been sentient while the fetus only holds potential and [2] that the fetus requires direct physical support from the mother while the patient in a euthanasia scenario solely relies on medical equipment. As Judith Jarvis Thomson points out in "A Defense of Abortion", if an individual in a coma had to be physically attached to a healthy individual constantly to maintain life than that individual would be morally able to unplug themselves from the individual in a coma. As to why sentience is an important characteristic of something that determines an "individual"s" right to life, I think that I do not need to elaborate too greatly. This distinction is functional on every level. It is not a sole characteristic, but it is part of what allows us to treat individuals who cut down a tree or chop up a human with an axe separately. If sentience is not important, then almost all facets of current life are immoral. I will save the second point of rebuttal for last and proceed to my opponent"s attack of the study I sited regarding the safety of abortion. I find it difficult to take seriously an attack on my source as biased when my opponent"s presented evidence comes from "lifesitenews.com", a website whose three primary options under the home menu are family, faith and abortion. For an indisputably moderate and accurate view, simply see the majority opinion from "Roe v. Wade". Even in 1973 it was acknowledged that abortions were (when done in sanctioned facilities) as safe as normal child delivery. My opponent"s contention holds no impact and is dismissed. Finally, I will address my opponent"s position that the sole justification for abortion is to preserve the life of the mother. While this is an obvious acceptation, some lines of logic are already presented that may assist in justifying other abortions. When faced with the choice between the mother"s life and that of the fetus, my opponent has conceded that the mother"s may take precedence. If this is true, then we must ask why it is so. This sentiment is not commonly held when choosing between the preservation of a mother and her infant child. This view seems to unintentionally concede that the fetus does not have the same rights as a human until birth. If this is so, then we have at least taken a first step towards justifying more abortions. However, because my opponent has only presented this narrow class of justifications for abortions, to successfully defeat his premise I need only advocate a standard similar to that ruled in Roe v. Wade, regarding a total justification of abortions during the first trimester. My opponent has failed to address my contentions regarding age of viability altogether, and it is vital to this debate. This is a common tactic taken by the more conservative- to present only late term abortions when the fetus most closely resembles a human and to ignore the first trimester in which the embryo is little more than a clump of cells (especially prior to implantation). Because my opponent has not addressed this vital category, because my opponent has not shown the dangers of abortion to other areas of law, because my opponent has not shown the significant dangers of abortion to the health of a woman and most importantly because my opponent"s proposed allowances for abortions is unnecessarily restrictive, you must vote Con. Thanks for the debate, Pro.