Abortion should remain legal

I'd like to start by clarifyingg that when I stated "This is not entirely true, the fetus is not entirely capable of becoming an adult as it is entirely dependent upon the potential mother" The intended effect was to compare the potential offspring to a limb, which would rot and die if detached. Also, I will admit that con's nature argument perplexes me. Yes, if two dogs mate, it will eventually produce a dog. What of it? The next argument I'd like to adress is the rebuttal to my parasite argument. I will concede that the human life cycle is not completed in the womb, but I do believe pregnancy can be detrimental to a potential mother. It can give her several biological side effects and may affect her life negatively in the long run, such as careers and budget, as I have discussed before. Next is the rebuttal to my car accident argument, con states that "What"s interesting in his analogy is that we actually do hold the party responsible for insurance and medical bills if he/she is the one who caused the accident (not entirely sure how this works in the UK where my opponent is from however). But I"d maintain that across our society people generally are held responsible for their actions." Of course people are responsible for their actions, but (at least in the UK) we still fix their broken bones, regardless of what they did during the incident. Pro then lists several statistics about the mental effects on a woman's mental health after abortion. I would like to demonstrate the use of pro's logic on mercy killing in this situation. If the woman were to get an abortion, she'd be at a higher chance of these problems, but if she were to not get an abortion, she'd have near 100 per cent chance of having an unwanted baby. The point I had really been looking forward to addressing is pro's Nazi analogy. Pro states that if I were to push my point, I would have to argue against current laws that oppose killing disabled children. As per his requests I shall do so so; These laws force a life to exist without the consent of the disabled persons who may be unable to comprehend or achieve much of life's joys, as a society, we have deemed it morally wrong to force someone into a situation without consent, and considering the child may be unable to give consent, then logically, the parent would have to make that decision on their behalf. The second part of this section states that "The analogy is meant to express the fact that these people can still find happiness in their lives, regardless of disease and disorder. " I agree completely, but putting happiness aside, they still cannot live life nearly as much as the average person, with the life they will actually live, and the time and investment you have to put into them, everyone's better off not birthing them in the first place. On a side note, I would like to ask for my opponent to stop comparing my views to that of nazis, or in some way setting up questions that force me to accept the Nazi's actions. (See our last debate) I skipped several paragraphs since they were all depending on wether potential offspring were considered living. In the closing paragraph, con discusses my brain death argument, he states that people who are in a vegetative state are still granted protection by the law. I would argue that this should be changed, if the subject could not recover, because at that point they are practically dead anyway. Thanks for the debate, con. I hope to hear from you again. References: http://www.urbandictionary.com... http://www.bodyandsoul.com.au...