Abortion should be legal

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate.Since my opppnent has made himself 'pro' in a debate where the resolution is "Abortion should be legal," I take it that he intends to carry the burden of proof. He did not stipulate that the burden of proof would be shared, so I will not be arguing that "Abortion should not be legal" (unless it becomes necessary in the course of the debate). I will simply offer rebuttals to Pro's arguments. If his case survives my critique, then he should win. If his case does not survive my critique, then he should lose.With those preliminaries out of the way, let's look at his arguments one at a time. From reading his post, I can discern three arguments: (1) the argument from the right of a pregnant woman to not have a child, and (2) the argument from the dangers of illegal abortions, and (3) the argument from bodily sovereignty.I. The right to not have a child.1. If abortion were not legal, then pregnant women would be forced to have children.2. A pregnant women should have the right to prevent herself from having a child.3. Therefore, abortion should be legal.The problem with this argument is that the first premise is just a tautology, and the second premise is a re-wording of the resolution, which means his argument begs the question. Essentialy, he's saying (1) If abortion were not legal, then it would be against the law to have an abortion; (2) it should not be against the law to have an abortion; (3) therefore, abortion should be legal. Pro has attempted to hide the circularity of his argument by the way he worded his premises.II. Illegal abortions are unsafe.1. If abortion is not legal, more women will have unsafe abortions.3. Therefore, abortion should be legal.Notice that what's missing from this argument is the second premise. Without a second premise, the conclusion doesn't follow, so this is an invalid argument. I could make guesses about what the second premise is, but then I might be accused of the strawman fallacy. In that case, I'll wait for Pro to supply the second premise.III. Bodily sovereignty1. The government should not control a woman's body.2. Making abortion illegal controls a woman's body.3. Therefore, the government should not make abortion illegal.This argument is problematic because there is a relevant exceptions to the first premise. If a woman had no other way to feed her child than to breast feed it, then the government would have the right to enforce a law that mothers breastfeed their own children. The alternative is that the government should allow mothers to neglect their own children, leaving them to starve to death. But having a law that expects women to breastfeed their own children means that there is a law that controls a woman's body. So although we might say that in most cases, the government should not control a woman's body, that is not without exception.ConclusionThe "right to not have a child" is just a rewording of "the right to have an abortion," so the first argument is circular. The second argument is invalid because there's a missing premise. The third argument is unsound because the first premise is false on the basis that there is an exception that is relevant to abortion. So all three arguments fail.