That abortion should not be a crime

"Is abortion really that dangerous to other people for it to be called a crime? Really, what effect would it have on others that may endanger them? Does having an abortion will create an outbreak in crime or distort the order in the society? The answer is obviously NO. The reason behind the making of crime does not validate the reason for why abortion should be a crime." This is, fundamentally, not true in the U.S. http://www.ncsl.org... As you can see, there are "fetal homicide state laws." In essence, if a man hits a woman in the womb and kills the fetus, regardless of the stage, he will be tried for not one, but possibly two accounts of murder (depending on the mother's health). The fetus, under the law in this regard, is considered a living, human being and is granted the protections of humans. Another classic contradiction is if a fetus survives the abortion, it is then considered a human life and people have to try to save its life under the Born Alive Infants Act. https://en.wikipedia.org... So yes, Abortions ARE dangerous to other people, specifically, the babies being killed. And personally, it was horrific to see a baby squirming for its life when a vacuum was ripping it to pieces from inside (don't mean an emotional appeal to be the foundation of my argument, but I find that some merit can be drawn from this if you want to google it and see what I've seen). "Does having an abortion will create an outbreak in crime or distort the order in the society?" --Opponent Nobody is arguing this straw man. Also, I am very unclear by what you mean when you say "order of society." That's a dubious phrase. The fact is, it is immoral---perhaps the root of evil---for a person to decide if a human is alive or not on a mere whim. And this is no exaggeration. If a man kicks a baby in the womb and kills it, it's murder. If a mother has an abortion and the baby survives, its THEN considered alive and the mother isn't tried for attempted murder.Essentially, if a mother wants to abort it for any reason she chooses, then its not a human? That's not gender justice, that is literally evil on a deep Orwellian level. I would argue that Its highly immoral to grant such power over another human life, as to define it as a living thing or not based solely on a decision---whatever the decision may be. "Women are bounded to so many ethnic beliefs..." This is a complete mischaracterization of history. Men AND Women were and weren't seen as "tools" in the past. In the U.S., since its inception, women had the right to property. Women had the right to free speech. The only time the rules changed (except for leader rolls and voting) was in the contract of marriage. Both parties were legally bound to carry out certain responsibilities under law. Yes, the property DID, in fact, go to the man, but the man had to legally provide a standard of living suitable to the family. If he didn't, he would be flogged and jailed for failure to support his family. These are but a few examples that show the absurdity in my opponent's mischaracterization of history. And to the contrary, I would argue men were seen as tools to a higher degree than that of women. The vast majority of deaths in war? Men. Vast majority of bucket brigades? Men. Vast majority of wage slavery? Men. Most valued slaves? Able bodied men. Most homeless (even to this very day)? Men. My opponent's final contention is that this is an act of "gender injustice." Allow me to retort. Women have the same rights today that men have. Unfortunately, your rights and freedoms do bare responsibility, and every action does have a consequence. Women can have sex with whomever they want. Nobody cares. But if you get pregnant, then it should be seen as a responsibility to at least deliver the child and set it up for adoption if you don't want it. Men don't have reproductive rights. If the woman wants child support and decides to come after the man, she's more than likely (if he isn't disabled, AWOL, or dead) going to get it. The man doesn't have the right to self preservation and is forced to work to support the mother and child on THEIR terms. If men are obligated by law to uphold his responsibilities, then the woman should too. So, no, it isn't "gender injustice." It isn't about the man or the woman at that point. It's about protecting the life of the child who never had a say in any of this. Unfortunately, your rights end when they infringe on another person's rights, especially the right to life.