AAN Tour: Voluntary Abortion should be legal

I wish her good luck in this last round and now I will present my rebuttals and show that voluntary abortion should be legal. Rebuttals1. Bodily rightsHere Con still claims that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy but she doesn't give any reason for it. Consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy. Human being is one of the several animal species that have sex for pleasure and not reproduction only. Dolphins and Bonobos do it also, and it's even interesting to note that scientist believe that this behavior makes Bonobos a really peaceful species compared to chimpanzees. Claiming that consent to sex means consent to pregnancy is like saying that consent to sex means consent to STD. Sure, you could have STD even if you don't want it, and I really don't think you would want it, but the same happens with pregnancy. You could get one even if you didn't want to or didn't planned it. And you can be very secure, the chances will be low, but it's still possible.2. Reproductive rightsAgain, the Con's rebuttal is consent to pregnancy. She says that except in cases of rape, the woman consents the sexual act, which is true, but again, it doesn't mean consent to pregnancy.3. Personhood is still irrelevantHere Con attacks the definition of abortion with a legal definition from an specific country, United States. I don't see any good reason to use that definition considering that she already accepted a definition at the start of the debate. She also mentions that the doctors have to kill the fetus. This is true for a lot of abortions, but I really don't understand the objection. Is Con suggesting that the doctor should use a C-section to remove the fetus and place it there so it can slowly die? The fact that the fetus dies is a fact of nature. And talking about C-sections, and I already mentioned this in my last round, it is a form of late term abortion that doesn't kill the fetus. Con then claims that birth also terminates pregnancy, but remember that the resolution is "voluntary abortions". Maybe it would be better "Premature termination of a pregnancy", but there is no use because I don't see any reason for Con to try to illegalize births. Now to end this issue, the reason the legislation of US consider abortion as just "early term abortions" is because that's exactly what their laws is about. And even if we accepted the definition of Con, that would not change the fact that abortion is not murder. Abortion is not about killing the fetus. Con can try to convince people that the fetuses should not be killed, make c-sections to women, and let them die naturally, those would still be abortions, but I don't think she will go anywhere with that. Abortion is not murder. Con then claims that the analogy (replacing the fetus with an adult) is flawed because an adult has free choice where he lives and should pay rent. Ok, Con can replace it with a 1 year baby or 2 years baby. It will be the same. Sure, now there is parental responsibility, but that will not change the fact that no baby/person/adult/human being should force others to donate. Again, sure, analogies are not perfect, for that reason I ask Con to address the bodily rights' argument itself instead. The analogies are for easy understanding.4. RapeHere Con mentions consent again. She claims that pregnancy without consent is very similar to rape, which is false. And now she mentions responsibility too. I already answered to this in her safety arguments against abortion. Having an abortion is taking responsibility for the situation a woman is in. And there are no parental responsibility because abortion is a way to abdicate parental rights. In her next paragraph, Con claims that there are a conflict of rights between the fetus and the woman. This is implying that the fetus should have all the rights, which I don't agree but I'm fine with because of the bodily righs' argument. If fetus is considered to have all the rights of a person, then it's true, there is a conflict with rights. But the rights that are not being respected are not the fetus rights, but the woman's rights. This is the whole idea of the bodily rights' argument. Again, Con was not able to prove that abortion is murder. She tried to play with semantics and US law but went nowhere. She didn't rebut the bodily righs' argument correctly either. She addressed consent several times but with no proof or reasons to back her claims up.5. Psychological damage is still a mythAbortion does not have negative side effects. Con is not able to provide reliable sources. She has to use sites that claims the same things she is claiming, but with no real sources. The site Con provided talks about a paper that doesn't seem to exist. I provided sources from the American Psychological Association with SEVERAL studies about the issue. Con here is just repeating the myths. And I can also provide the names of studies related to abortion that reach the same conclusion, anyone can buy them and read them. I just posted those from the APA because they were free.6. Safety of abortions-Illegal abortions continuingI never claimed that abortions should be legal because they were not going to stop. It was a part of the safety reasons and it was necessary because of the comparison between safety of abortion being illegal and legal. And her comparison with theft fails. She is implying that abortion is murder and as bad a theft. Abortion is not something wrong per se. Con continues to claim the long term consequences without evidence and provide similar sites with similar claims. -Safetya. Money. She drops the original argument and attacks the rights. Already addressedb. Procedure. What's not been proved is that it's humiliating. c. Health damage. I stopped reading that site after the "Almost 100% of women regret abortions". Already addressed. j. Avoiding responsibility. Abortion is not murder. Already addressed. The rest arguments were already addressed and rebutted. Conclusion Pro presented a compelling case for the legalization of abortion. Con was not able to rebut any of the arguments of Pro with reliable studies or reasons. Voluntary abortion is necessary to ensure the woman's bodily rights and reproductive rights. The rights of a fetus, implying that it's a person with all the rights, are not being affected by the abortion. Giving the fetus the right to live AND the right to use the woman's body is giving the fetus privileged rights which is not moral in any way . SourcesNo sources were necessary.