Abortion Should be Legal

My RefutationsRefutation #1: Personhood vs. HumanAllow me to explain how under my opponent's logic, killing people who are asleep would be legal! Now yes, a fetus cannot practice its ability of self-awarness, but it has the ability to practice it in the near future. This is the same with people who are in asleep or in a coma. So people who are asleep or in a coma are not conscious or aware. However, we do not kill them because they have the ability to practice self-awarness in the near future. Thus, a fetus and a sleeping person would both be a person because they both have the ability to become conscious. So a fetus is a person and killing a person is illegal. This logic is also flawed. If we judged equal rights based on qualities like consciousness, then what that means is that those who practice their consciouness better would be more valuable than those who cannot. This is the logic I see from my opponent. Since all humans are considered equal, that means all humans should have equal rights. [1,2]Refutation #2: Economy vs. OverpopulationI am sure tha majority of Americans would want economic growth and more wealth as well. That is why population growth is key to producing a good economy. Many voters would argue that the most important issue to them is improving the economy so to simplify: economic growth > abortion. Thus, abortion cane be justified because the people would be much more happier with economic growth than if abortion was legal.My opponent has argued that overpopulation is a reason to allow abortions. However, this is flawed because the U.S. is not overpopulated. In terms of total fertility rates, the U.S. is ranked 121 out of 222 countries. Overall, the population is western countries is expected to decline over the next 50 years. This is because global fertility rates are in general decline. Oh, by the way, we aren't overpopulated anyway. [3,4,5] Refutation #3: Health Risks vs. ChoiceMany women actually have low incomes (57% do). This means that since most of them are uninsured they get to go to the ER and get care from tax payers. This means that their cancer harms of them and Americans in general. This is unfair. Breast cancer effects everyone, not just the woman, so the American tax payers would be paying for anyone who cannot afford it. So in other words; saying it only effects the woman is a lie and refutes the point of my opponent's rebuttals. [6,7]Refuting My Opponent's CaseThis argument is incredibly illogical. If a fetus is not a person, its a prosperity. If it is a person, then it cannot be property. It is very clear that a fetus is a person and therefore it is not property. A person cannot be owned and a fetus is a person. Here is a quote:"Every one of us began our existence as an embryo. The embryo we were was not an entity distinct from us; it was us. Sure, as an embryo we did not exhibit the same properties we do today, but we did possess those properties intrinsically as part of our nature. This invites a question to the pro-abortion advocate: If it is wrong to kill me now (as a child/adult), how could it have been permissible to kill me then (as an embryo/fetus)? Both instances involve the same entity. The unborn differ from the born in their stage of development, not their kind, much the same way newborns differ from adults in their stage of development, not their kind. If we recognize the latter, why do so many deny the former?" [8]ConclusionI have proven that abortion should remain illegal to not kill a person, to keep the American people happy through better economic growth (and the country is not overpopulated), and that breast cancer hurts everyone (abortion causes breast cancer). My opponent's contention is illogical. Vote con!Sources1. http://socrates.berkeley.edu...2. http://www.prolifetraining.com...3. https://www.cia.gov...4. http://www.economist.com...5. http://www.thefreemanonline.org...6. http://www.prochoice.org...7. http://en.wikipedia.org...8. http://theosophical.wordpress.com...