Abortion should be legal

Thanks, Con. Con did not address my opening arguments, and much of what they said in their R2 argument was addressed in my opening argument, so I will use excerpts and sources from that argument here. 1) "Where does science say that life begins at birth or viability? Uniqueness is what defines humanity, not location. Should born people be killed if they depend on a machine for life support? What about the rights of the baby to choose?" I said: "The scientific answer to the question of whether life begins at conception, at birth, or at some other point during a pregnancy is not absolute, but depends on which perspective is used (1). Therefore, legal systems are unable to know whether embryos and fetuses are scientifically human. However, international human rights codes (2) and almost all national constitutions, including that of the United States (3), refrain from defining them as such. Giving embryos and fetuses legal status as human beings would come with many complications, such as the hassle of counting them in censuses and recording them as tax dependents, as well as such absurdities as extensions of birth certificates (which would, of course, now be conception certificates) and social security numbers to the unborn. Given that there's a chance of miscarriage, this wouldn't be at all practical." In other words, there is no conclusive scientific answer to the question of whether a fetus is alive or not, and there never will be because it always depends on perspective and one can't say that, for example, the embryological answer is "more valid," than the ecological one because they are looking at the question from totally different angles. But generally, foetuses are not legally defined as living. And anyway, whether the fetus is alive or not is irrelevant, because even living people are not allowed to use the body of another person without their consent. Someone with badly damaged lungs could die if they don't get a lung transplant, but the donors still have to be willing to donate segments of their lungs. If no one is willing to donate, the person with damage lungs will die. Is this a reason to support compulsory organ donation? No, because people should have control over their own body parts, even if robbing them of their autonomy would save the life of another. If a woman is pregnant and wants an abortion, she hasn't consented to the fetus using her body parts and therefore has the right to not loan out her body to it. In addition, unlike someone who is dying from diseased lungs, the fetus is unlikely to be able to feel pain (4), unable to go through the emotional trauma of dying and has no family who will be deeply saddened by its death - so why should it have a greater "right to life," than them? A machine does not have feelings, human rights or bodily autonomy, unlike a human being. It exists solely for the purpose of keeping a human alive. Humans don't exist solely for the purpose of donating organs to the sick, and women definitely don't exist solely for the purpose of childbirth or pregnancy. 2) "You are nitpicking. Whether you are right or I am about how late abortions take place is not relevant to the fact that abortion kills a human being." I wasn't the one who brought up this point - I was simply refuting an argument made in the previous round. Refusal to donate a segment of one's organ could also kill a human being, and unlike a fetus, the human being killed in this situation is certainly alive. 3) "If the fetus is not human, what species is it?" A dead person is also human by species, but dead people don't legally have human rights. And again, even living people in the case of organ donation are not allowed to undermine the autonomy of another for the sake of their right to life. Sources 1, 2 and 3 are sources 1, 2 and 3 of my opening argument while source 4 is source 1 of my argument in R2. A large part of my opening argument has gone uncontested. Con has a lot of work to do in order to negate this debate's motion in the final round.