There is no reasonable, non-religious reason for abortion to be illegal.

Thank you again for your rebuttals/objections. It has been a pleasure to have my first debate on abortion with you. Now, let us see what Pro have said here.Pro said: 'You say to give the child away, but we must look at the amount of people the Earth is able to keep alive. In 2010 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation released a report stating that there are 925 million poeple without enough food to eat. Around 12 million people world wide suffer from Choleria, a desiese spread by infected food and water, typically found in over populated areas.There are many theories published though-out the years stating a wide range of populations that the world would be able to sustane, from one million people to one trillion.I know it sounds harsh, it sounds harsh to me too, but the cold hard truth is that it would be better for the entire world and the people that reside upon it, for that person to not be born.'Rebuttal: So Pro is arguing that it would be better for the entire world and the people that reside upon it for that person to not be born, because many people in the world have not enough food to eat and because many people have diseases like choleria etc.It is indeed true that our world in many places is harsh. I myself know that our world is not perfect and very harsh in many places. This fact has always been a reality and will probably always be. However, why should our unborn offsprings (which we need if mankind is to survive) pay for this reality? Why should they be killed and be deprived their future and life just because some places in our world are harsh? Do you think you should have been killed when you were a fetus just because some places in our world are harsh? Since when does the value of human life depend upon how harsh our world are? Come on, let us not be irrational now. The fact that our world is harsh doesn't give us the right to deprive the fetus right to become a fully grown human being like us, and have a future and a life like us - and nor does it justify it. Pro has not given us any reasons why it should.Moreover, Pro's objection creates one very critical question:We know that the world is harsh. However, why is it better for the entire world and the people that reside upon it, for that person to not be born just because of that? More importantly, does the fact that the world is harsh justify killing a fetus and thereby depriving it's right to become a fully grown human like us, and have a life and a future like us? If yes, how so?Pro has failed to answer this question. Thus, Pro's objection fails and should not be given consideration, since Pro's whole objection breaks down when this question doesn't become successfully answered. Therefore, Pro's objection becomes nothing more than a non-evidenced and unsuccessful objection.You can't just say for example that murder is wrong without answering the important question "why?'. This is exactly what Pro have done. Nevertheless, Pro's objection is really nothing more than a very weak one and just a failure.Conclusion/SummaryWe have no rights whatsoever to deprive someone of their future and life. This is one of our most important and natural rights. By killing the fetus, we are depriving both of these rights from them. A fetus will become a human being like us, have a future like us, and basically a life like us. Isn't that reason enough as to why a fetus shouldn't be killed? Indeed, abortion should be illegal (i.e., Killing the fetus). In fact, abortion ought to be illegal (expect in those three situations which I gave in my first round).I have given a non-religious but also still a reasonable reason (i.e., The future argument + refuting some of the most common objections to it) as to why abortion should be illegal. Pro has not successfully refuted this argument and his objections to it are all flawed and very weak (as I clearly showed when I refuted them). Thus, Pro's claim (which is also the title of this debate) that there are no non-religious, reasonable arguments for abortion to be illegal, is false and refuted.Now, I humbly ask the voters to give me the following points:The conduct point: Why? Because Pro forfeited his round 2 (I know that he did that because his computer was experiencing some technical difficulties, but that's with all due respect not my problem. When you create a debate, it is your responsibility to make sure that you can completely finish it without forfeiting).The source point: Why? Because Pro gave zero sources. I at least gave some sources in my round 2 and 3 (Two sources in my round 2, and one source in my 3 round).The argument point: Why? Because Pro didn't give any arguments. He only gave two objections against my argument. And as we can see, these two objections are both very weak and are not successful in refuting the future argument.Thank you, and thank you Randomname for this debate.