Legalized Abortion Has Done More Good Than Harm.

A notice to everyone that AKMath is stealing his arguments from BertrandsTeapot at this debate here: http://www.debate.org.... However, since the person he is debating seems to be a competent person, I will continue to debate them. >Chrmon2 has also moved the goalposts of this debate (though I must admit, I got caught up in it a bit as well), focusing a lot on when life begins and the viability of fetuses rather than the issue at hand - whether legalized abortion has done more good than harm. I think this is very relevant, given how BertrandsTeapot, I mean "AKMath", claims there is no basis for equating abortion to infanticide, which they think is begging the question. However, I was simply pointing out that if abortion was morally equivalent to infanticide, their pros/cons would be roughly equal. I did this by showing how fetuses have moral rights. I could see how "bodily autonomy" might be irrelevant if we're looking at "the most good for the most people." Since BertrandsTeapot seems to be focusing on the easiest points to refute, I will spend some time solidifying my uncontested arguments and then move on to those. Fetal Personhood - Future sentience determines moral value, which is pretty much why it's immoral to kill people in a coma. If Pro is going to start making excuses like, "past sentience also determines moral value," then what about dead people? I'm pretty sure it's not murder if you stab a corpse. I guess I win this point by default, since Pro didn't even try to counter me. Bodily Autonomy - Since women (although indirectly) are responsible for fetuses' dependence on them, they are responsible for keeping the fetus alive until they are no longer independent. Basically, since Joe was responsible for protecting his property, he can't open his door in good moral standing no matter the reason. Pro has not differentiated the situations or given a reason that Joe can open his door. I guess that means I win this point by default. Good vs Harm >This is so clearly plagiarized as the [1] citation doesn't reference anything [Edit: Spelling] Actually it does but since AKMath was too busy plagiarizing to copy my sources, it makes sense why BertrandsTeapot wouldn't see them. Last two points: Abortion is safe for women. Okay, so is infanticide. >I believe it's from a 2015 study Whoops, 3 years ago. However, the citation said 2014. Even though these points say abortion isn't as horrible as it could be if it put women in danger, it's still basically killing people, which Pro apparently agrees with since they didn't counter either of my points on fetal personhood and bodily autonomy. So my points aren't "changing the argument". Killing people is harm, or at least I would think so, and the topic is "does legalized abortion cause more good than harm". The fact that Pro doesn't think it matters whether or not fetuses are people makes it look like (I assume) they wouldn't care if lots of people were being killed because it's "not relevant" and "shifting the goalposts". I assume Pro would counter that fetuses don't have moral value, but they've done a pretty bad job of defending that by ignoring the point altogether.