Abortion should be illegal

Round 3: CON 1. Gaps in my tampons? 1. Last round, I said that: Tampons stop FLO. ...That is, if stopping “Forthcomings simiLar to Ours” is morally wrong, a tampon is just as morally wrong as abortion is, and as nobody would say a tampon is morally wrong, so shouldn’t anybody say abortion is morally wrong. To this, Pro said 2 things: 1. FLO only counts for a baby, not for an ovum. 2. A tampon is a bad analogy anyway, in that a woman can not start having a baby if using a tampon. To this, I say: To FLO not applying to ova: As soon as a girl hits 9 or 10, a baby can pop out following continuous 9-month spans. Say that a girl or woman volitionally skips a span, or is habitually lackadaisical following birth in carrying out an act which would bring about a following birth. How can anybody say that such a woman is not in so doing stopping offspring from having a FLO? Obviously, in such a situation, which ovum that turns into a child is not known, nor is what DNA from which dad known. ...but this is trivial: What is not trivial is that from such a girl’s or woman’s dilly-dallying, *a* child from *an* ovum and *a* dad is *not* having a FLO. Pro’s claim is on that account ad hoc, FLO warrants no distinction for a baby and an ovum, and thus, as I said initially, as a tampon is not morally wrong so isn’t abortion. On tampons as an analogy: If FLO can apply to ova, using tampons is immoral, not on account that an act of actually using a tampon is immoral, but on account that using tampons is a logical fruition of acting immorally for a month (immoral, if FLO is right, which it’s not). 2. Stopping this black holocaust Last round, I said: You don’t try to outlaw abortion if it has racist links, you try to disjoin said links. To this, Pro said: Abortion is racist at its roots, so you can’t disjoin its racism from it. To this, I say: If you wiki Maggy S.:abortion, Maggy S. was a champion for birth control, but was actually against abortion. If you wiki US historical racial statistics, you’ll find that: In 1850, 66 yrs. prior to Maggy S.’s first clinic in 1916, Non-Hispanic Caucasians stood at 83.8% of US population, Blacks stood at 15.7%, and Hispanics at 0.5%. In 1910, Non-Hispanic Caucasians stood at 88.1% of US population, Blacks stood at 10.7%, and Hispanics at 0.9%. And in 2010, Non-Hispanic Caucasians stood at 63.7%, Blacks at 12.6%, and Hispanics at 16.3%. Also, if you wiki abortion, abortion’s historical log is roughly 3775 yrs. old, going back to Hammurabi’s Laws (1760 BC). From this information, an individual can draw that: Maggy S. was not a part of abortion’s initial historical formulation, Maggy S. was actually against abortion, Up until now, abortion has not had an impact on US racial population distribution. Thus, abortion is not racist at its roots, so you should act towards it as you act toward all things with racist links; that is, you should maintain what part of it is not racist, and try to disjoin said links. 3. Who wants to start raping 9 yr. olds? Last round, I said: “Not raping any girl 9 and up in whom offspring is not now spawning is morally wrong.” “...Pro has not had an opportunity to talk about tampons (or his strong suit, raping 9 yr. olds)” “...Option #2=Raping 9 yr. old prima donnas.” To this, Pro said: Implying an individual will start raping 9 yr. olds during this match is wrong. To this, I say: Quotation #1 is what I think follows logically from Pro’s claim about FLO; accordingly, it is talking about what should occur if that claim is factual, not what will occur. Quotation #2 is an allusion to a DDO match Pro had last month about raping 9 yr. olds. Quotation #3 is not about what will occur if you ballot for Pro, but what I think you logically sanction by doing so. Again, I’m not saying raping *will* occur in any way, only that it *should* occur *if Pro’s FLO claim is right*. 4. Abortion=Anarchy? In my first round, I said: Allowing abortion shouldn’t allow killing of just about anybody in that humans of full form can fight back. To this, Pro says: It sounds as if Con is saying that individuals who can’t fight back should stop living. To this, I say: Think of a world prior to laws against randomly killing anybody. In such a world, at any instant anybody could try to kill you (or try to kill a third party, and kill you without trying to) with no ramifications, apart from you or a buddy of yours trying to kill back that guy or gal trying to kill you. Virtually nobody wants this situation to occur; thus, no notion of human-vitality sanctity is obligatory so as to outlaw it. So, it’s not that humans who can’t fight back should stop living, it’s that a proto-human, contrasting from a human of full form, can not fight back or rally support, and thus, a law which stops random killing on account that it stops total chaos from occurring can not similarly apply to abortion.