Abortion should be made illegal.

After failing to respond for 72 hours resulting in a forfeited round, Pro has returned with many unsubstantiated facts and conclusory statements. My sincere apologies. I have been experiencing technical difficulties for a while. A likely story. Please excuse this previous round from voting. Pro had 72 hours to respond and failed to do so. Pro is responsible for failing to debate. 1. I am not arguing that abortion should be outlawed because SOME abortions are unsafe, I am arguing that it should be outlawed because ALMOST HALF are unsafe. Pro is arguing that abortion should be outlawed because some abortions are unsafe. “Some” is inclusive of “almost half." From a global standpoint, abortion is much more dangerous than childbirth, accounting for 13% of maternal deaths. Pro's statistic is not substantiated with evidence. There is no purpose in focusing globally other than for Pro to be able to include in his statistics as many unsafe abortions as he possibly can. As I said before, since such a high number of abortions are unsafe it is unreasonable to allow them to continue. If safety is Pro’s concern, then a reasonable alternative would be to prohibit only the unsafe abortions. The interests of safety are not advanced by prohibiting safe abortions. Take Chile as an example. Chile has had abortion outlawed since 1989 and has the lowest amount of unsafe abortions as well as the second highest rate of maternal health in the entire world; even more than the US. Pro cites no source when alleging these facts. Pro brings the claim, so the burden of proof is on him. Pro must do more than simply allege facts - Pro must establish his facts with evidence. This shows that it is a lot safer to naturally have a child and that the argument of "women will just get abortions illegally" is false. Unsubstantiated facts show nothing. Even if they were true, they wouldn’t demonstrate that “it is a lot safer to naturally have a child and that the argument of ‘women will just get abortions illegally’ is false.” Con used a comparison between abortions and roads in his/her arguments, but this analogy again does not work at extreme amounts of danger. Abortions are so dangerous from a global standpoint it is not feasible for them to continue. Again, Pro has failed to justify his method of categorizing abortions. Pro’s stated objective is safety, but does not categorize abortions on the basis of safety or its correlates. Pro lumps every method abortion, world-wide, both safe and unsafe, in to a single category, measures the average risk of an abortion from that new category, and then declares that the average risk of an abortion is unacceptably high. 2. My point on the SISAC argument still stands. While people may try to make killing a fetus SEEM less repugnant than killing another person, all of my comparisons still work. It is not less repugnant to kill a fetus than any other human being because that necessitates many other moral dilemmas. Pro’s position is that ALL abortions should be prohibited, not just late-term abortions. Pro must demonstrate good cause to prohibit abortion in even the earliest phases of pregnancy where sentience hasn’t emerged yet. (e.g. a zygote 1 second after conception) As you can see, as abortion is unsafe, institutionalized murder, it should immediately be outlawed. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Abortion is legal, and thus not murder, in many jurisdictions. That is what all of the factual and not supposed evidence points to. This is an exceptionally conclusory statement.