Abortion should in most cases be illegal

Rebuttals: Pro for some reason thinks that round two is also intended for rebuttals, but in most structured debates it is to outline an opening case. #3 has not been broken as it states that you cannot make new arguments in the FINAL rebuttals; which I assume would be the last round. Anyway, now I will gladly address his first argument and additional points from his rebuttals. ****Pro began his case by offering a basic definition of a fetus; he asserts that the fetus 'meets every criterion to be alive', but using this kind of logic you could also argue that sperm (a living cell) also meets every criteria and should therefore be granted its own set of rights; in fact more, as unlike a developing fetus, sperm can actually survive outside the body. (10.) http://www.sciencefocus.com... and (11.) http://www.webmd.com...One could also say that plants are living things, so that the fetus would be considered a living organism is simply a non-issue and most definitely does not constitute a valid argument in making abortion illegal. Here we should only be considering the practical elements involved, law, and what it is there for. Pro states that other beings that are not 'not persons' are granted rights--he refers to domesticated animals, etc. but this is is pretty much rebutted by the fact that A.) these creatures, or 'living things', are already born. And B.) they present an entirely different set of challenges to that of a child. He's also forgotten that domestic animals also have abortions performed on them, so in that sense, they do not have a great deal in the way of 'rights'. On the next note, Pro concedes that women 'have a right to control their bodies', which essentially means they can choose whatever happens to them or their bodies--abortion is not an unwanted health problem, it is a choice. A choice that women will make regardless of whether it is legal or not--and the fetus is entirely part of its mothers body, it is unable to survive without it. It is not a 'being' that can make its own decisions or think as a person, so unless something goes wrong with the mother or she loses the fetus, the control over its destiny is entirely in her hands. Now considering sex, people have it. It is unrealistic and quite frankly overly simplistic for Pro to argue that people should've been 'controlling' their bodies at the time of conception, sex is a very natural process and a large number of pregnancies are unplanned. According to some statistics for the U.S, around 45% are 'unintended' (12.) https://www.guttmacher.org...Pro again goes back to the point of the fetus somehow having rights, but as it is not a person and instead labeled as a 'a prenatal human between the embryonic state and birth', we can establish that abortion is not the same as a homicide. Most women who have abortions do so within the initial few weeks of pregnancy as well, when the fetus is even more undeveloped (13.) https://www.theatlantic.com...So again, Pro talking about the baby exiting the womb is irrelevant, as abortions are not *legally* permitted at this point anyway. A newborn baby is a different thing to a two-week old fetus. Going back to Pros round three statements, he himself has dropped many points and has seemingly failed to review any of the links I've provided or look at my argument in any depth. He has failed to show how a developing fetus' life should have equal or more value to a living, human persons life. He mentions making abortion penalties so severe that few women would ever consider having one, which, as I'm sure many can see--would be an extremely harsh and authoritarian measure. Plus as I have argued, it would increase the number of *dangerous* abortions and make the woman far more likely to inflict self-injury upon herself, things that my opening argument and sources addressed. Pro has also ignored the circumstances in which a woman may be seeking an abortion, such as underage sex, rape, not being financially or emotionally equipped. Would it really be a good idea for abortion to be illegal in these cases? He has placed considerable emphasis on the life of a fetus, without considering the actual people in question would be the women carrying that fetus.