Abortion should in most cases be illegal

**Closing Arguments** In the vast majority of debates on this site, it's commonplace that each side provides their opening arguments first--and then rebuttals. So I'd like to clarify again that Pros case was not 'dropped', as he claimed it to be. My point about the fetus, sperm cell was to illuminate that one cannot simply conclude that on the basis of a fetus being alive, that it should automatically be granted the same rights as a fully-formed human being, who can survive and exist outside the womb. I would also highlight that the fetus, is only classified as such at the 8th week of pregnancy. Prior to that, it is considered an embryo (14.) http://www.differencebetween.net... And, as I have mentioned previously in the debate, most women have an abortion in the very early stages of pregnancy;it does not take long for a woman to realise she is pregnant at all and the women who do think abortion is the best option are, overall, pretty decisive about their decision. According to some studies as well, one in three women (in the U.K) will actually have an abortion in their life (15.) http://www.independent.co.uk... Which raises my point again about the practicality of Pros contention--that abortion, in most cases, should be illegal. It would not stop abortion and most certainly would not make it safer. Responding further to my argument about fetus-sperm cell, just because the two things are technically different, it doesn't make the comparison any less valid. Pros contention was that the 'aliveness' gives it rights, but this is a weak statement as it can be applied to other living things. Now we go onto the point about not having sex, if you can't rear children. This further draws attention to impractical and unrealistic theme to Pros argument--people will and do have sex for pleasure, and sometimes unintended consequences come as a result of that. In the case of it being unwanted pregnancy, the question should be over what is the best and safest option for the mother and the child; for the mother it should be what is essentially safest, and for the (potential) child it should be what is essentially best. It certainly, by societal standards, would not be best for the child to be reared in a home environment in which it would not be wanted or indeed not have the necessary nourishment that it requires--say if it was conceived during a one-night-stand, fling, or simply to two people who weren't ready for children yet. So the argument that 'sex is for reproduction' is a fallacious one, sex naturally can result in reproduction, but it is not exclusively for that specific purpose. If this was the case, what would Pro say to women that can't biologically have children (or to men who can't) yet still wish to have sex? Are they somehow to abstain because they cannot have children? Pro also mentions other alternatives, like putting your child up for adoption or into foster care. But this presents an entire different set of challenges--firstly, that emotional bond with a human that is NOW developed and existing outside the womb, is harder to break. And, the world of adoption I can imagine is quite difficult. Firstly there is no guarantee the child would immediately have a home, and there is also no guarantee that it would *definitely* go to a good one and/or that the adoption would be successful in the long-term (16.) http://www.telegraph.co.uk... In fact it is estimated that for children under the age of 3, disruption rates (with adoption) range from 10% to 16% (17.) http://www.telegraph.co.uk... The article also states that for teens it may well be as high as 25%. What Pro is basically arguing is that on the basis of a small embryo or fetus somehow having the same rights as developed humans, that if the embryo or fetus is unwanted, the developed humans should put it up for adoption and enter it into a world unknown--of course to Pro, it doesn't matter that with each unwanted child, it would be a greater strain on society and in the case of adoption, on the social services. To Pros next point--again, the fetus IS part of a woman's body actually because of that very reason (existing within their body.) Everything that is in your body (organs, bones, etc.) is a part of it--and an embryo or fetus that are certainly no exceptions. Pro goes into sex again, but only refers to two people 'consenting' for it; he leaves out rape as a way for women having an unwanted pregnancy. I think I have summarised most of what needs to be summarised here; my key points being that an embryo and a fetus or not the some as an existing human being, that unwanted pregnancies do inevitably happen, and that the response should be to maintain abortions as safe and legal procedures.