WODC: Voluntary Abortion should be legal

Now I will present my own and show why voluntary abortion should be legal. RebuttalsThe mistakes' argumentThis is how I called the first paragraphs of Con from the analogy to her arguments about how mistakes can be punishable. but if one has not made a decision, there is no mistake and there should not be any punishment. In summary, she implies that the fetus is being punished for the mistake of the woman. But this begs the question. First, there are a lot of cases that can't be considered caused by mistakes of the woman. Second, this also implies that abortion is murder, which is also false. Abortion is defined as the (premature) termination of a pregnancy. In other words, the fact that the fetus dies is just a fact of nature, and not caused by any way by the mistakes of the woman, in any case of abortion. Con here presents one of the methods used for abortions in her try to prove abortion is murder. I want Con to compare this method with the fact of nature I mentioned in the last paragraph. What I mean is that it is in no way better to make a C-section to the woman. to remove the fetus without killing it just so it dies naturally outside of the woman. Con needs to understand that abortion is not murder. The fetus would die anyway, even if that method is not used. I already addressed this in my last round, but my opponent still claims abortion is murder without addressing my points. The bodily rights' argumentHere Con attacks the argument claiming that a woman doesn't have control of the bodies of other people, and I agree. But it fails as a rebuttal because the woman is not doing anything with the body of the fetus. The bodily rights of the fetus are not being affected by the abortion, nor his rights to life. Abortion is the (premature) termination of a pregnancy, in other words, a doctor could practice a c-section to a woman, remove the fetus before viability and don't touch it anymore, and it will still be an abortion. So abortion is no wrong per se, and it's not murder. It doesn't affect the bodily rights of the fetus and it doesn't affect his right to life either. This argument doesn't even touch the issue of life or personhood because it is irrelevant, but it would not change anything if we gave the fetus all the rights of a person. Then Con claims that the right of life supersedes the right to not be pregnant. If "not being pregnant" endangers the life of the woman, then there is no reason not to be pregnant. This is also a point I already addressed in my last round. Abortion doesn't affect the rights of the fetus. Con ends proposing more methods to avoid pregnancies. Sadly, there is still a lot of cases with secure sex that ended in pregnancies and abstinence is not a solution because the consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. It's easy to see, if you took away one of those others methods, that would go against the reproductive rights of women. Same with abortion. Personhood issueIn my last round I presented some reasons about why personhood is irrelevant to the debate. Here my opponent claims that personhood is indeed relevant and she gave some reasons. She claims that I want to dismiss the fact that every abortion kills an innocent human being. First, the reason I mention that the personhood issue is irrelevant is because we could give all the rights of a person to the fetus and the argument of bodily rights would still stand. Second I already addressed that abortion is not murder. It's not like I want no one to notice about it. There is no reason to consider the fetus a person, but it doesn't matter. Let's give it the rights anyway. And I don't want Con to ignore the analogy. I want her to address the argument directly. The analogy was a tool for easy understanding. I see that it didn't work because Con still wants to discuss the issue that the fetus is a person and still claims that abortion is murder. The analogy is a tool to understand that even if the fetus had all the rights of a person, it would not have the right to use the body of the woman. She now claims 2 major flaws in the analogy. The first one is totally false. When a person has sex, there is a lot of things that could happen, pregnancies, STD, etc. Consent to sex doesn't mean one wants or embrace those scenarios. It's illogical. Abortion is a way to take responsibility of the situation you are in, but it's in no way related to consent to pregnancy. The second one is the same issue than the last. It's assuming that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. I would like Con to elaborate on the analogy if she wants. Again, I don't consider an analogy perfect, there is always issue and limits, but those should be addressed separately and may not be addressed with the analogy. Security of abortionsNow Con addressed my arguments on security. She starts claiming that illegal abortions are practiced by doctors with no sources and no justification. Her source is not reliable. The source mentions some quotes about how there is no evidence even though I presented sources and evidence that shows otherwise. [2][3] Studies show that outlawing abortion does little to deter women seeking it. [1] The restrictions made women look for other options, untrained practitioners, and they even practiced their own abortions. I showed that it is still happening in countries where abortion is illegal. There is no reason to deny that reality. [2][3] And this is a part of a bigger argument. I'm not claiming abortion should be legal because there would be abortions anyway. It's part of the argument of security which only works if there are abortions when it's illegal. Argument 1: Every abortion kills an innocent childHere Con tries to present her own case for the criminalization for abortion. Her first argument is that abortion is murder. I presented a rebuttal for this in my last round already. And it was not addressed. Argument 2: Beginning at conception, every pregnancy involves two bodiesI already presented reasons on why personhood is irrelevant, but Con still feels the need to make a claim like that. There is no evidence that life (of a human being) starts at conception. You have different sciences disagreeing on this topic. Genetics agrees that life starts at conception, but sciences like Embryology or Neurology disagree with that. Science has no exact answer to this question. I really don't need to discuss the issue of life, but I think this is important and makes Con's case weaker. Beginning of life is irrelevant because Pro can give the fetus all the rights of a person, but the fact that there is no proof of the claim makes Con's case weaker. And personhood makes it way weaker than that. Argument 3: It is just to outlaw certain choicesHere Con implies that the only reason I claim abortion should be legal is because there would be a choice. This is false. The bodily rights are necessary in a modern society. The choice is related to having a baby, not to killing it. So a choice is necessary then. And legal abortion is necessary because it would be giving special rights to the fetus. Argument 4: The right to not be killed supersedes the right to not be pregnantThis was already addressed. It was even worded in the same way. Argument 5: “Unwantedness” does not morally justify abortionI will wait for the actual argument. Argument 6: Abortion is more dangerous than childbirthI will wait for Con's actual argument, but I hope she presents reliable sources this time, from actual scientific papers and not unreliable site that recycles claims. Conclusion I thank Con for her rebuttals and arguments. Con was not able to address Pro's arguments properly. Pro showed that abortion is not murder and that personhood is irrelevant to the debate which are huge part of all the arguments and rebuttals of Con. Sources1. . http://www.nytimes.com...2. . http://www.who.int...3. . http://whqlibdoc.who.int...