Abortion should be legal

Thanks to Con for his post; I'll respond.Contention One: Maternal Deaths"1. We don't make laws based on rare exceptions. To do so would be absurd. For instance, that lethal force is permitted to defend yourself against an attacker, doesn't mean lethal force should be allowed for all other purposes..."In the same sense, abortion should be permitted in this situation; that is exactly what I'm arguing for! Permitted is being used as a synonym for legal here. My opponent appears to think I am using this a ground to permit abortion in all situations; I am not. This contention is to make abortion legal under those scenarios. Instead of refuting, my opponent has pointed out the obvious - which I agree with."Abortions for medical reasons are rare. Less than 4% of..." This is irrelevant. My opponent second objection as to why my "argument fails" is based off semantics of "abortion". Abortion (as we're defining it in this debate) is: "The intentional termination of a pregnancy by surgical procedure in which the death of the f[o]etus is an intended result."[...Since in this type of abortion the intended result is not the death of the f[o]etus..."]My opponent then tries to use the procedure where the death of the foetus is the intended result and show how it isn't. Semantics.If a mother has an abortion (of any type), then by definition, the death of the foetus is the intended result. If it isn't then it's not an abortion by definition and thus my opponent is arguing against something that is pointless. ((It is rather ironic that my opponent mis-treats the definition of abortion to try and show how I have mis-treated the definition of abortion!))True, the health of the mother might be at heart, but saying that there can be only one is a false dichotomy fallacy. There can be multiple intentions. Extend contention.My opponent mentioned self defence, so I will actually move onto my second contention:Contention Two: Self-defenceThis is an interesting one to ponder. Allow us to assume that if a woman is pregnant and she continues the pregnancy then she will suffer, physically and/or mentally. I do not mean that she will die, merely suffer. So, what is causing this suffering? The pregnancy. What is causing the pregnancy? The foetus. Therefore, even if we assume that(i) The foetus is living(ii) The foetus is human(iii) Killing the foetus is murderWe can justify abortion as a form of self-defence to protect physical and mental well-being. As a comparison, turn the pregnancy into a pointed, loaded gun, and the foetus as the person wielding it. Is killing the person wielding it a justified form of self-defence? My opponent and I seem to both agree. Therefore, this is a justified situation.This can be extended to any form of abortion if a woman's or girl's mental or physical health would be damaged and/or forfeited. Reminder: I would like to offer a friendly reminder to my opponent that he has not met his burden yet, because all he has done is attempt to refute my first contention and not introduced any of his own. if he wishes to fulfil his burden, he must introduce at least one contention.Lastly, I would like to extend a thank you to my opponent, the audience, and the voters for this fun and interesting debate! Please vote and I'll see you all around!J