Abortion needs to be legalized in all states

While reading Pro's opening, it's easy to get distracted by the many irrelevant claims that Pro makes. The question for this debate is whether abortion needs to be legalized in all states (nevermind whether it already is legal in all states). It's irrelevant whether Christianity is loving, it's irrelevant whether Catholics are obnoxious, and it's irrelevant whether men would legalize abortion if they could get pregnant.Let's just talk about the points Pro made that are relevant.First, Pro says, "I feel that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body." But since when did a feeling amount to an argument? Pro is just expressing autobiography here, and it has no bearing on whether abortion ought to be legal in all states. If Pro had made the claim that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies, then that would be directly relevant to the issue under dispute.Let's give Pro the benefit of the doubt and assume that's what Pro meant to say. Well, there are two reasons for why that doesn't lead to the conclusion that abortion needs to be legalized in all states. First, because abortion isn't just something a woman does to her own body. It's something she does to the growing body inside of her. Second, because women do not have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. For example, they can't sell their organs on ebay.The second point Pro makes is that abortion isn't murder because for the first three months, the unborn isn't a "legal human." It's just a zygote whose heart and brain are not fully developed. This argument is fallacious for a number of reasons. First, because there's no such thing as a "legal human." "Human" is a biological classification, not a legal classification. But even if there were such a thing as a "legal human," that would be irrelevant because the question for this debate is not whether the unborn already have protected status under the law, but whether they ought to have protected status under the law.Second, the unborn are human through every stage of developement. Zygote is not a distinct species from human. Rather, it's a stage of development that humans go through. None of us became human by progressing through different stages of development. We didn't come from zygotes; we once were zygotes.[1] The fact that we are human through all stages of development is evident in the fact that we have the same human DNA through all stages of development and that our parents are human. If zygotes were not humans, then they would not have the capacity to progress through the rest of human development.Third, the fact that the brain and heart are not fully developed at 3 months of pregnancy doesn't mean the unborn isn't a human up to that point. After all, the brain isn't even fully developed when the baby is born. It continues to grow after that. If having a brain that isn't fully developed means you're not a human, then even newborn babies are not humans, which is absurd.The third point Pro makes is that abortion is none of anybody else's business. Pro says if you don't want an abortion, you shouldn't get one. This argument begs the question because the argument only makes sense if there's really nothing wrong with abortion. After all, nobody would say, "If you don't want to rob banks, then don't rob them," and use that as an excuse for why bank robbery ought to be legal. And nobody would say, "If you don't want slaves, don't own them," and use that an excuse for why slavery ought to be legal. In cases like bank robbery and slavery, we would never agree with Pro that "People need to stop worry about what other people are doing and worry about what they do." So Pro's application of this principle cannot be used in the case of abortion. We worry about what people do all the time. That's what law is for!In conclusion, Pro hasn't given us any reason to think abortion needs to be legalized in all states.1. http://www.christiananswers.net...