Abortion should be made legal.

I'll start with a line-by-line sort of, and then go general. --Line-by-Line-- I recognize the "pro-choice" stance, I am not ignorant, rather, I seek to ignore the "fetus deserves all rights" debate because it isn't productive. I would rather debate on the best real-world policy. The fetus is a human debate will never achieve anything, we'll never see eye-to-eye. We can argue this for eternity and that would still be the case. However, I will argue that newborns receive human rights (in other words they're human after birth) (note this isn't my real life view). As well, I will point out the flaws in your methodology of conception. A. Accepting a human at conception is ridiculous, the cell has no human characteristics not contained by a sperm or egg cell. It has no brain, no heart, no lungs, but rather, it is a unicellular organism like a sperm cell or an egg cell. B. Egg cells and sperm cells are just as human as a fertilized zygote. C. Furthermore, you will likely argue that a zygote will develop into a human being, however a sperm or egg cell cannot without help. However, the zygote needs nutrition, protection, and a slew of other things from it's mother. All a sperm or egg cell needs is the corresponding sex cell, and it's at the same point. The truth is that all three are potential human adults, but all three are also not guaranteed survival, any of them can die, not uniquely the sperm or egg. D. This means if you accept if zygotes (cell at conception) have full rights, sperm and egg cells must as well or you're a hypocrite. E. This means masturbation should be banned, there is nothing worse than mass-slaughter. Trillions of sperm are wasted a day, all potential human adults like a zygote. You must advocate this to avoid being a hypocrite. F. Any women that fails to get pregnant once every nine months is a murdered as well, she has allowed an egg to waste, which is also a potential human adult. So yes, by your standards, any women not in perenial pregnancy is a murderer. Ultimately, the point of this is to show the problems created from your standard for giving human rights, it's not a wise policy option. Imagine trying to enforce a law against masturbation, lol. As for rape, this is a case where I think it can truly be said that choice triumphs. The woman has not chosen to have a child, instead, a man has chosen to force her to do something she actively chose not to do, he forced her to take a life inside her, and now you force her to take it to term. You take rights away from women, it's that simple. It's equivalent to sending a hungry child to a not wanting family. They clearly didn't want the child, but you forced the child upon them. You forced them to suffer for your sense of morality, your ethics. Your forced them, they had no choice. You can't force someone to do something against their will. And on your point that a fetus from rape has the same rights as one from a marriage, I agree, they both have the right to be aborted. A fetus shouldn't be considered a full human at conception, as explained above. Furthermore, my right not to do what you tell me trumps, a woman does not have to bear a child forced upon her if she does not wish to (though it's perfectly fine if she does wish to). A) You agree that an exception could be granted on health or B) It shouldn't be. You claim you don't conceed, but again, you either do, or you're being oppressive. As well, all of these documents can be forged. I mean honestly, if the USfg can forge evidence that some random nation has WMDs and convince a less-then believing world of it, then it clearly isn't hard to get through an already defunct system through forgery. On your next argument, it's simply untrue. Look at the law books today, last time I checked, they don't execute women for having abortions, though they do it for murder. As well, I've explained above why a fetus doesn't have all the rights an adult does. The truth is that abortions are going to happen (and as you admit, they are sometimes ok), and laws won't stop them. Banning abortions simply makes them more dangerous for the woman (and the fetus dies either way). You can't compare it to murder either because under no circumstances is murder considered ok. We have an ethical and political responsibility to lessen the harms of something that is 100% inevitable. Forcing abortions underground would not decrease them. Abortions can easily be done, there's little stopping them. Furthermore, people that seek abortions generally have a reasoning behind it (contrary to what you think, the reason is rarely because they like killing zygotes), and people with a motive will seek out abortions regardless. Your argument that there will be less information is perhaps the worst argument I've seen yet, welcome to the INTERNET! There's no way you can suppress information without surpressing the internet, good try on that one. Less safe methods won't necessarily deter anyone, there's plenty of people that like a taste of danger. Though truly, people seeking abortions won't be deterred by less safe methods. So again, underground abortions does not mean less abortions. They get information through the INTERNET, others that have had abortions, and numerous other ways. The fact that alcohol is illegal (for under 21) hardly deters so many teenagers today from drinking it or finding information on it (or where to get it). So my argument stands. True, I'll give you that many laws are based on morals. As well, consider your own arguments that rape is illegal because it involves someone forcing themselves on someone else. By making abortion illegal, you force yourself on any woman that's been raped and doesn't want to carry the fetus out to term. You don't provide an alternative on the suicide argument. The fact is that with your argument we lose two lives, and with mine we lose one. I win it. And since I get this argument, it can be applied to any abortion because anyone can claim suicide and thus get an abortion. I win. Also, on your last argument, I'm not saying that children are necessarily a punishment. In fact, if someone seeks them and gets them, it's a blessing, but on the other hand, if a women is raped and you force her to give birth, then it is a punishment, and nothing else. --General-- Clearly the NEG's idea of rights at conception are absurd. Furthermore, it oppresses women and takes away their liberty. It's been entirely conceded that if an exception is granted on rape, it should be granted to all women (though it's been contested that rape is not an exception). That means if I win the rape exception, I win the round (especially since it's not legitimate for the NEG to bring up an entirely new argument answer that I won't ever get to respond to). Furthermore, I have a net benefit on the suicide argument, which means you vote for me there. Don't forget that there's been no reason provided why life outweighs liberty. On the rape argument, I advocate that liberty outweighs because life has no meaning if we take away liberty. If we take away people's right to choose their life, we demean life itself. Liberty in this case is a pre-requisite to life, no one wants to live a living death. And even if my opponent comes up and answers that life outweighs, you'll give me the vote because the suicide argument gives me an advantage in lives saved, the NEG will always kill two, I kill one, so my impacts outweigh in the life category as well as liberty.