Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: pro choice

How can the body of a woman be infringed upon when a woman knows the result of sexual intercourse is a fetus?When she is prevented from dealing with her body as she sees fit, her rights to her own body are being infringed upon. This is self-evident and if you disagree you are going to have to explain yourself. You are failing to understand that a parasite can only be from the animal kingdom and not the human kingdom because the fetus itself is from the family of homo sapiens. A parasite feeds from the host and also injures the host at the same time causing injury. There is no proof of that in a fetus. For a parasitic relationship, those elements of science have to exist.There is no such thing as a 'human kingdom'. Humans are as much a part of the animal kingdom as cats, chimps, and mice. Do not assume I don't understand what you are trying to say. It just irrelevant. Regardless of species, the fetus leeches nutrients from the mother and does not return them. Again, this is a parasitic relationship: one organism leeches from another without returning anything. Some definitions include the stipulation of separate species, and others do not. But either way, you cannot possibly argue that the fetus has anything to contribute to the biological relationship. It only takes, it does not return. The claim that pregnancy causes no injury to the woman leads me to believe you have never even spoken to a pregnant woman. Pregnancy is extremely taxing on the mother's body, even in environments where she has no shortage of food and does not need to be active. It often leads to malnutrition, anemia, or high blood pressure, and even when it doesn't do any of these things, it is still exhausting, painful, and their bodies will never be the same. This is technically injury to the woman, even though in some cases it may be minor, and is completely natural. If a woman were to be forced to endure a pregnancy based on what someone else think she should do with her body, I am sure the mental toll would also be enormous. But a mother should not recuse herself from the birth of her fetus when the fetus contains her DNA and is equivalent to murder. Murder is the intentional taking of a human life which in this case refers to abortion itself as well.You are studying law and you are trying to say abortion is legally murder? A fetus is not legally considered a human life and so it cannot fit the definition of murder as you are using it. The fetus having possession of the mother's DNA has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is murder. Your skin cells have your DNA but you are not committing murder when you scratch yourself. This point is also of subjective importance; don't assume that what matters to you is what matters to everyone.Even if I did consider a fetus to be a human life, I still maintain that the mother's rights override the rights of the fetus. I would be ashamed to live in a country that forced unwilling mothers to incubate babies they didn't want, effectively reducing them to subhumans whose bodies were at the mercy of someone else's whims. This sounds like a nightmare. The government has no right to tell you or any other citizen what medical procedures they must undergo or what medical procedures they may not undergo. If a mother chooses not to take care of her child after she gives birth to it, she can be criminally prosecuted for criminal negligence.The reason the mother is and should be culpable is that, at that point, the child can depend on someone else for life, so if she does not want the responsibility, she is able to someone who will care for the child. Before the fetus is viable, it cannot depend on anyone else for life, so if she does not want the responsibility, she is unable to find anyone else who will finish the pregnancy for her. Abortion is currently the only option for women who do not want to remain pregnant; if there were some way to remove the fetus and put it in the body of a willing surrogate, I would be all for this.  And if she chooses to give the child away for abortion, then the child will still need the help of another foster mother for survival.Since this is nonsense, I am going to assume you mean 'adoption' instead of 'abortion'. This does not change a single thing about my argument; at this point, the child can depend on someone but its biological mother for survival, so abortion is not necessary if the biological mother no longer wants to care for it.--In addition to my previous point, I would like to pose a hypothetical situation. Someone has a child. When their child is 10 years old, he becomes gravely ill. Only an organ transplant will save him. Unfortunately, the only person who can give him a matching organ in time is one of his parents. For whatever reason, the parent is unwilling to give their child the organ he needs. Should the government get involved and force one of the parents to give the child an organ, under threat of punishment? If yes, why draw the line at a parent-child situation? Why not force every citizen to have their unnecessary organs surgically removed and given to people on the donor list? If no, why not? After all, the humanhood and citizenship of people on the organ list is not even under debate, and you have shown you think it is okay to force people to conserve life/a living human at the expense of their own bodies.