Legality of Abortion.

Argument 1)Explanation of the argument: My opponent states that pro-life people believe a fertilised egg is an example of life and therefore abortion is immoral, he denies the validity of this claim by stating that a fertilized egg is just as alive as an unfertilised egg or even a sperm cell. He questions whether if abortion is immoral is for example not putting every drop of semen to use immoral. He says: 'Whether or not abortion is immoral is a matter of opinion until biology proves without doubt that a fertilized egg is a human life.'. Rebuttals:Abortion is a completely different process to abortion since a male does not ejaculate pre-mature babies. To put it into more detail abortion is killing an entity that is growing into a baby. There is no such potential when egg cells and sperm cells are two entities separate of each other. A single sperm cell is not a member of the homo spins but when the egg and sperm connect they become one life form with his/her own nature. A nature that is distinct from it's parents E.g. the mothers eggs and the fathers sperm. The sperm is of nature that of the father and an egg equally bears the nature of the mother. When the egg cell is fertilised by the sperm, they become one and they starting bearing a human nature of their own, they become a real human life. -The destruction of a sperm does not kill the father. -The destruction of the egg does not kill the mother. In the process of abortion the new life form is destroyed. Whether abortion is immoral is a matter of opinion, that can be agreed upon. Whether slavery was acceptable was also a matter of opinion not long ago. Someone from the early 19th century may ask: 'Who would pick up the cotton?'. The point is it does not matter whether it's a matter of opinion, any horrendous action can be viewed as acceptable by someone. Unless we can establish that absolute morality is valid we have to determine ourselves what is right and what is wrong and as a society enforce this. I never knew that biology objected to the entity which results from conception not being a life form, If my opponent presents any objection from biology I'm happy to respond. Argument 2)Explanation of the argument:Pro argues that the point of law is not to stop an act but to create a punishment for said act. He continues on by saying that when abortion is made illegal women still get them but unsafely. He then offers us a quote which states that the United Status legalised abortion due to the clear evidence that restrictive laws were not ending abortion.RebuttalsMyth 1. The point of law is not to stop an act but to create a punishment for said act.There are various reasons for law, the most fundamental being the functionality of a society in my opinion. Pro does not offer us an explanation to why there would only be this single point to law. Plain packaging of tobbaco is said to have lowered the rates of tobbaco use. This is one of the reasons why a country could choose to enforce this.Sources:http://www.health.gov.au...Myth 2. Women will still get abortions and therefore there is no point to criminalize the act. While it is true that women will still get abortions through illegal means the whole point is to make it more dangerous so that less women would consider it. I would not deny the correlation between abortion restricts and abortion rates however I would deny any causation. I would point to the fact that the parts of the world with the harshest abortion laws are also some of the poorest. 'One constant refrain from the pro-choice side of the abortion issue is that there will be just as many abortions if they are illegal, but that they will be much more dangerous. Both arguments are objectively false. It’s old news that the first part of that argument is false. The famous chapter in Freakonomics that claimed abortion lowered crime rates was based on a study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics called The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime (pdf). One of the subsidiary findings of the study, discussed in footnote 8, talks about the relatively small decline in births at the same time as the number of abortions went up dramatically after legalization:'Note, however, that the decline in births is far less than the number of abortions, suggesting that the number of conceptions increased substantially—an example of insurance leading to moral hazard. The insurance that abortion provides against unwanted pregnancy induces more sexual conduct or diminished protections against pregnancy in a way that substantially increases the number of pregnancies.'In other words: when abortion was legalized you didn’t see a shift of the same number of abortions from illegal to legal. You simply saw many more abortions. The second part of the argument is also deeply flawed: abortions got safe long, long before they were legalized, and it had nothing to do with the law. (Details here.) It was simply a reflection of advancing medical technology. Even prior to Roe, illegal abortions were performed by doctors, and in the arguments leading up to Roe the safety of illegal abortions was considered an argument for legalizing them. The whole “back-alley abortion” thing was invented after-the-fact as a scare tactic. So the evidence suggests criminalizing abortion would lead to a lower rate of abortions without making the illegal abortions that do take place any more dangerous. Maternal death should not increase.'I know this is a large chunk from an article and I am not using this as my own argument, but just to give a little more information to my opponent. I myself believe that the safety of the aggressor should not be taken into account. Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org... (for information on which countries have the least liberal laws).http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com... Argument 3Explanation of the argument:My opponent states that because some people may not accept a fertilised egg as an example of life, abortion is a victimless crime and therefore should not be illegal. Rebuttals:The problem with this argument is that we can never apply a law that would please everybody and would have universal support. Hitler could refuse to accept the argument that killing Jews is wrong by refusing to call it an equal life form, that does not make it a victimless crime. The Jew is the victim as is the unborn in the case of abortion. Argument 4Explanation of the argument:Pro claims that legal abortion lowers crime rates.Rebuttals:The theory is not highly credited as explained by The Economist in it's article about falling crime rates: 'Unwanted babies were more likely to grow as criminals, it was argued: that theory is now largely discredited: it doesn’t cross borders and crime has continued to fall long after the effect should have tapered off'. If abortion has been proved to lower crime rates, it is not a necessary reduction since there are other ways in which we can indirectly lower crime rates such as gun freedom and peaceful parenting. To implement a system of legal abortions based on this theory would be to take pragmatism too far. We would be sacrificing morals. We could kill disabled people and people with diseases that they would pass onto their children as Hitler did but this would not work accordingly with what is the right thing to do. The ends do not necessarily justify the means in other words. Sources:http://www.economist.com...I request that Pro does not address what I have stated here but that he posts his rebuttals of my opening argument instead like I just did.