Abortion should be made illegal.

Pro’s safety argument is not compelling. Pro does not assert that safe abortions do not exist. In fact, it can be inferred from Pro's statements that Pro's position on the matter is that safe abortions do exist. For example, Pro states that "[a]lmost half of worldwide abortions are unsafe, about 20,000,000 of the existing 42,000,000, were actually unsafe." An equivalent statement would be that "more than half of worldwide abortions are safe, about 22,000,000 of the existing 42,000,000, were actually safe." So, apparently Pro's position isn't that safe abortions do not exist. Rather, Pro's position is that all abortions should be prohibited because some abortions are not safe. This type of reasoning is known as "throwing the baby out with the bath water." Pro's safety argument fails because the interests of safety are not advanced by prohibiting safe abortions. The safety argument cannot be used to justify prohibiting both safe and unsafe abortions - It can only be used to justify prohibiting unsafe abortions. Turning to Pro's other argument - Pro asserts that human fetuses, and presumably embryos, are humans. Pro further argues that because a fetus or embryo is a human, it is therefore immoral and/or unethical to terminate a pregnancy because doing so results in the death of a human. For reasons discussed below, Pro's reasoning is flawed and should be disregarded. I do not dispute Pro's assertion that human embryos and fetuses are humans. Rather, I dispute Pro's underlying assumption that the quality of being human is the most significant material fact to the ethical inquiry – It isn't. Whether or not an organism is human is fundamentally immaterial to the ethical inquiry. Rather, it is those metaphysical qualities strongly associated with humans (i.e. Sentience, Intelligence, Self-Awareness, and Consciousness; "SISAC") which are material. The intrinsic moral and ethical value of an organism is positively correlated with the degree to which it exhibits SISAC. Stated differently, the more SISAC an organism exhibits, the greater the intrinsic moral value of that organism's life. To help illustrate - Canines, felines, cetaceans, and primates (excluding humans) are certainly not human, but, to a certain degree less than humans, the species of these taxa exhibit SISAC. It is therefore morally repugnant to inflict pain upon and/or kill these creatures absent good cause, but less so than killing a man. Additionally, most reasonable people would be in agreement that inflicting pain upon and/or killing insects, arachnids, or other arthropods is significantly less repugnant than doing the same to canines, felines, cetaceans, and/or primates. This is because insects, arachnids, and other arthropods exhibit SISAC to a substantially lesser degree than do canines, felines, cetaceans, and primates (excluding humans). Relating this back to Pro's position - A human zygote, embryo, or fetus, while it may technically be a human, does not exhibit, and never has exhibited, any degree of SISAC. Consequently, the corresponding degree of moral repugnance associated with killing that organism (e.g., in the case of abortion), is very low. It doesn't matter whether or not the organism in question is human or not human - It is only the degree of SISAC which matters. Turning toward Pro's other arguments, these seem to be arguments against imagined positions of pro-choice adversaries. (Pro's words: "However, many pro-choice advocates are adamant either that a fetus is not human, that it is fine to abort if the mother's life is in danger, or that it is acceptable if the child will not have a good life. There are several responses to each") I will not be burdened with defending positions that I haven't explicitly ascribed to. So, I will not be responding to these arguments. RE: Sources - I see no reason to dispute Pro's facts because the soundness of my arguments does not appear to be contingent upon facts other than Pro's. So, I will yield to Pro's sources for the moment.