Abortion should be legal

In the last round, Pro gave three arguments for why he thinks abortion should be legal. I answered all three arguments, explaining why each one fails to establish the resolve. Pro didn't even attempt to defend any of those argument. He just let us know that "My arguments are not false" and that he "stated each of my arguments in more than one sentence" in order to "prove that those arguments are valid. " He dropped I and III, and all he did was restate II without defending it against my critique. There's still a missing premise in that argument. Pro expressed his wish that I would make an argument against the right to have an abortion. Doing that would take up space, though, and as I pointed out in the last round, Pro did not stipulate that the burden of proof would be shared in this debate. I have not agreed to accept the burden of proof, so I'm not going to waste space trying to make a case against abortion unless that's the only way I can refute his arguments. Pro has introduced some new arguments, so let's look at those. IV. If abortion is illegal than there will be a lot more protests going on. I'm not really sure how this is relevant. Whether abortion is legal or illegal, there are going to be protests. If it's legal, pro-lifers are going to organize protests (as they do). [1] If it's illegal, pro-choicers are going to organize protests. So what? This is not relevant to the resolve. V. Women who are pregnant will have no choice but to give birth to a child even if they don't want to. I'll probably be accused of a strawman argument, but I'm going to take a stab at supplying the missing premise to make this argument valid.1. If abortion is illegal, then pregnant women will be required to given birth even if they don't want to.2. Nobody should be legally rquired to do something they don't want to.3. Therefore, abortion should not be illegal. That second premise is obviously false, which can be demonstrated with a reductio ad absurdum argument, like so:2. Nobody should be legally required to do something they don't want to.4. Bubba doesn't want to drive under the speed limit.5. Therefore, Bubba should not be required to drive under the speed limit. Since it is perfectly justified to forbid Bubba from speeding even though he wants to speed, premise 2 is obviously false. I suspect Pro will accuse me of making a strawman argument since Pro never asserted 2. But if Pro rejects 2, then he needs to replace it with a different premise in order to make his argument valid. V. If that child is not raised well then there will be a good chance that the child will become a criminal. Again, I'm not really sure how this is relevant. What exactly is the argument here? What is the hidden premise? I'm guessing it something like this:1. If an unborn fetus might grow up to be a criminal, then a mother should have the right to abort it.2. Any child might grow up to be a criminial.3. Therefore, all mothers should have the right to abort their young. This is a strange argument. The mere possibility that the fetus might grow up to be a criminal is no justification for killing it. We don't even have the right to kill people who have already grown up and actually become criminials, so how can we justify killing a fetus who hasn't committed any crimes at all yet? Surely, there's more to this argument than Pro is telling us. As it stands, this argument is fallacious. VI. Raising a child takes a lot of time, work, and money, which some people don't haveApparently, if raising a child takes a lot of time, money, and work, it's okay to kill it. Well, I think Pro needs to give us a little more argument before this one will go through. How does it follow that because having a child takes a lot of time, money, and work, that women are therefore justified in abortion? Pro doesn't tell us, so this really doesn't even amount to an argument. ConclusionPro just asserts these things as if he thinks it's obvious that his conclusion follows, but it is far from obvious to me. He needs to tell us how it follows from these various statements that abortion ought to be legal. These statements really don't even amount to arguments. I've done the best I can to turn some of them into arguments, but I've had to make guesses about Pro's premises to do it. But even my best guesses don't salvage his arguments. They all fail anyway. [1] . http://texasrallyforlife.org...