Abortion should be legalized.

In your Round 1 argument, you made no qualifications for when abortion should be legal -- thus implying that it should always be legal. There are radical pro-choicers who would call you a woman hater or a "reactionary," etc. There are those whose motto is "free abortion on demand and without apology!" So just as you charitably want to include me in the "pro-choice" camp (only based on my professing that I think abortion one second after conception is not murder), they too would count you on the "pro-life" side of the ledger. This just proves that this issue is very delicate and sticky. The main thrust of your Round 1 argument was that pro-lifers who are against legal abortion are hypocritical, based on your assertion (with evidence) that countries that do not allow legal abortion have more abortion-related deaths than countries that do allow legal abortion. In Round 1, I argued a non-hypocritical Natural Rights-based reasoning for making abortion (in some or all cases) illegal. You don't challenge my argument, thus, I can only assume that you agree that not all arguments against legal abortion are necessarily hypocritical. Going further, I must state that I'm not sure where I stand on abortion. There is a lot of gray area. I am definitely for choice a moment after conception and definitely against it a moment before birth. All the time in between is tough for me to say, but I do think the nature of the act that led to pregnancy -- i.e. consensual sex vs. rap -- is relevant, and here's why: No matter what precautions an individual takes prior to (heterosexual) sex, he/she must acknowledge the possibility -- however remote -- of pregnancy. It is "unfair," of course, that the woman bears the greater responsibility in this matter, but it is a fact of biology. Point being, if she consents to sex, she is admitting the possibility that she may become pregnant, and if she does, she will have become so willingly. However, if she is raped, she did not consent, and thus cannot (at least in my eyes) be made to "take responsibility" for the result. You make a good point that (most) women who have abortions do not consider the act "murder," and thus, there is no "intent." However, if the state were to legalize infanticide -- as many states have throughout time -- would this make the act of killing one's own child (outside the womb -- maybe a year or two later) not murder? You know more about neurology than me, and certainly more than most legislators (who know very little about anything). Based on my own (limited) knowledge, I can't say when a fetus becomes an individual with rights. You seem to have better insight into this matter, but I'm guessing that there are plenty of rational people who would disagree with you. Point being: A one-size-fits-all solution is not for the best, in my opinion. Here is a mindbender. I do not support the federal anti-partial birth abortion ban (while you do). I do not believe abortion is any issue for the federal government, and that's why I'm also against Roe v. Wade. If the states were to decide abortion's legality, then there would be some states that got it right and others that got it wrong. This is preferable to ALL states getting it wrong -- which pro-lifers would say is the case now, but the tables could just as easily be turned under a centralist regime. SUMMATION: All pro-life arguments need not be hypocritical. One who believes in Natural Rights could be against legal abortion even if the illegality led to net negative consequences. And one can believe in Natural Rights and life at conception without being a hypocrite. Even if you believe (as I do), that life does not begin at conception, it is not hypocritical to think that it does.