Instigator / Pro
17
1614
rating
17
debates
85.29%
won
Topic

Legalizing Abortion in the US

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
6
3
Sources points
6
4
Spelling and grammar points
3
3
Conduct points
2
2

With 3 votes and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...

Pinkfreud08
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
15,000
Contender / Con
12
1481
rating
11
debates
40.91%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
Just to clarify my position, I believe abortions should only be allowed if it's within the first 5 months of pregnancy, or if the mother became pregnant outside of the mothers controls IE rape, condom breaks, birth control fails. Also, religious arguments will not be accepted as most religious arguments are very arbitrary and irrelevant.

- Abortion is not killing if it's done within the first 5 months of pregnancy as in the first 5 months, according to sciencemag.org, the fetus isn't even sentient nor has any levels of intelligence. Therefore why should you care about a being that doesn't experience pain nor has a consciousness? If your counter-argument is that at that point in development the fetus has a potential to be alive then you should be against masturbation or women not getting their ovulated eggs fertilized, or perhaps the unintentional killing of non sentient micro bacterial, Which in and of itself is utterly ridiculous.

- Abortion can also be justified if the mother was raped or if a condom breaks. While these events are rare, They still happen and denying an abortion in these scenarios are unfair and possibly deadly if the women are underage. Forcing possibly a young girl to undergo a painful pregnancy which could scar her for life with disorders after just experiencing a traumatized rape is purely disgusting. Especially when more likely than not the girl in questions life will be ruined from having to take care of the baby, or the costly amount it is to raise the baby. 

- One of the biggest counter-arguments is that " Well if you don't want to risk having a baby, don't have sex,". I am convinced the majority of people who make these arguments have never come close to sex before as this is grossly inaccurate. By this logic we shouldn't have a police force as " Well if you don't want to be murdered, don't go outside," or perhaps people shouldn't swim since " well if you don't want to drown, don't swim". This logic is very arbitrary and ignorant. Besides abstinence, only education has proven itself to be rather ineffective as the sad reality is teenagers and adults are going to have sex for pleasure regardless. Abortions would in turn act as a safety net for the unfortunate people who got pregnant if a condom broke or birth control failed.  

- Case and point, Abortions are justifiable in certain scenarios and therefore should be legal in those situations whether it be the women were raped, If the mother would die in the baby's birth, Or if it's within the first 5 months when the fetus isn't sentient.

Sources,









Con
I will be arguing against abortion in cases before 5 months. I will also argue against abortion in which the pregnancy was outside of the mother's control. I'd like to request we avoid euphemisms such as "pro-life," or "pro-choice." They only work against the discussion in an unsavory manner.

Points of contention.

- Abortion is not ethical, moral, or good in any way. 

At no point could the fetus be considered 'a blob of cells' any more than a baby or a child. Babies are born without full consciousness and without autonomy, so it's unreasonable to suggest we be able to murder a fetus without supporting infanticide. Ending a life prematurely is always immoral and comes burdened with implicit consequence, but such an action is justifiable through rationalization for many. 

- Abortion prior to 5 months is not justifiable. 

Remaining consistent here, the little one is already distinct from the mother and father. At no point could he/she be considered just a blob of cells, unless humans themselves have no inherent value. 

- Abstinence is a reasonable method of countering pregnancy, discluding rape of course. 

This is a self-explanatory position, I believe if people make the choice to have sex they accept the innate risk. It's a common misconception that sex carries no inherent danger or responsibility when both are unavoidable and innate to intercourse. 

- Abortion is not a solution to rape and not ethical in cases of rape.

Abortion does not become a moral solution when rape comes into the picture. It's still abortion, and still carries the same implications. 

- Abortion is not necessary

Abortion is not necessary or as effective as alternative birth methods such as c-section and vacuum extraction.




I will defend these points and cite areligious sources in the following rounds. 

Round 2
Pro
"  I'd like to request we avoid euphemisms such as "pro-life," or "pro-choice." They only work against the discussion in an unsavory manner."

- I 100 % agree, I feel as those terms are very inaccurate. A lot of pro-choice people are pro-life, but simply don't see the nonsentient fetus as a life. 

"  Babies are born without full consciousness "

- Consciousness isn't the only trait a being with sentience has, more importantly, a fetus after 5 months feels pain and well being. Consciousness is important, however, feeling pain and well being is even more important. 

"  At no point could he/she be considered just a blob of cells, unless humans themselves have no inherent value. "

- Humans do have value for several different traits that human and life in general possess. Intelligence and more important sentience is the most important trait that a human possesses. Without consciousness, or more importantly the ability too feel pain and well being, the harder it becomes to justify the existence of an organism. This is the same reason why we don't value micro bacteria, as micro bacteria has no intelligence and no sentient, this is why as a society we've come to the conclusion that micro bacteria cells aren't worth saving. 

" Abstinence is a reasonable method of countering pregnancy"

- The reality of the situation is that while abstinence is the only 100 % guarantee for not having an unwanted pregnancy, it is unrealistic. Even the most well behaved of men succumb to the primal urges to have sex for pleasure, this is why abortion should be legal too act as a safety net. For example, not going outside is almost a 100 % guarantee too not get hurt, however, the reality is that going outside is apart of human nature, which is why we have hospitals and a police force to reduce the likelihood of people getting hurt. Another example would be swimming, simply not swimming is a 100 % guarantee not too drown, however, the reality is many humans love to swim and may get the urge to swim. This is why we have trained lifeguards to reduce the number of people who drown. Case and point we need a safety net to prevent unwanted pregnancies, 5 months is more than enough time for a mother to catch the pregnancy and make a decision. 

Abortion does not become a moral solution when rape comes into the picture. It's still abortion, and still carries the same implications."

- So you would rather see a young girl be raped and be forced to give birth to a fetus which may or may not damage her physically and mentally than to see an organism that most likely isn't sentient yet to be terminated? I and many other people would rather see a non-sentient being suffer than see a sentient being suffer and possibly die. 

" Abortion is not necessary or as effective as alternative birth methods such as c-section and vacuum extraction."

- C-sections are certainly not good for the well being of the mother as there are many side effects, according to tommys.org, c-section side effects include, heart attacks, problems getting pregnant in the future, problems in future pregnancies, such as low-lying placentaplacenta accretamiscarriage and stillbirth, and to the baby may cause breathing problems or a higher risk of admission to the neonatal unit. 

-  Vacuum extractions are also very inconvenient to the mothers well being as well, aside from the possible side effects for the baby, vacuum extractions still hurt the mother, and still involves the mother inconveniently carrying the baby for 9 months. 

SOURCES: 



Con

I'm going to make a much more concise argument now. The baby is distinct from the mother and father's individual cells at the moment of conception. It is pure potentiality, and by killing (or aborting) the baby, you've transformed that potentiality into an actualized death. 

Consciousness isn't the only trait a being with sentience has, more importantly, a fetus after 5 months feels pain and well being. Consciousness is important, however, feeling pain and well being is even more important. 
Consciousness is far more important than the ability to feel pain. My mother struggles with pain constantly. Shall we kill her because of this? If we drug her first she'll even lack sentience.

Humans do have value for several different traits that human and life in general possess. Intelligence and more important sentience is the most important trait that a human possesses. 
How about no, how about there is more to humanity than simple intelligence and sentience. The universe did not have to be here, nor did we; but it is, and we are. The purpose of life is to be found in existence itself. Depriving someone of such a pursuit is equivalent to a universal sin.

Even the most well behaved of men succumb to the primal urges to have sex for pleasure, this is why abortion should be legal too act as a safety net.
We have several safety nets, here are the main 3: Condoms, Contraceptive, Monogomy. 

If the women chooses to avoid all 3 of these things, her pregnancy is the result of her own irresponsibility. As such, the baby should not be forced to pay for her mistakes. 

So you would rather see a young girl be raped and be forced to give birth to a fetus which may or may not damage her physically and mentally than to
see an organism that most likely isn't sentient yet to be terminated?

I would like to see the rapist punished not the baby. The rapist is the one who forced the pregnancy on the women, and the blame lies exclusively upon him. Also, abortion harms both the mother and the child in a case like this further by perpetuating violence. It's a simple misconception that even in cases like this the the welfare of the child and mother are opposed to eachother. [2]

This is also an incredibly marginal case and we're arguing for legality of abortion in general. If I conceded abortion in this circumstance is okay, would you then agree the other 99% of abortions are wrong? [1]

"C-sections are certainly not good for the well being of the mother as there are many side effects"

I never said that C-section or Vacuum extractions were beneficial to the mother's health. I was simply making the point that abortion isn't necessary in the modern world to save lives. Most doctors estimate the amount of abortions that are needed to actually save a life is close to 1% or lower. [3]


Sources

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#ConCon - not used as a direct source, but still relevant if the debate or discussion drifts towards it. 

Round 3
Pro
"  My mother struggles with pain constantly. Shall we kill her because of this? If we drug her first she'll even lack sentience."

- Um no I already stated that people who can feel pain have a right to life. Also drugging her to knock her unconscious is
incorrect for several reasons however the biggest reason is that people who are unconscious still feel pain. According to sciencemag.org, " 
In healthy subjects, a zap to the wrist elicited activity in brain regions that rev up in response to pain." The article then goes on too state that even unconscious brains in vegative states still register pain. Going off of this, the mother would still be able to feel pain and therefore it would be wrong to kill her. 

" The purpose of life is to be found in existence itself. "

- Ok so then if your main value of life is in existence and NOT on sentience nor intelligence, are you against people unintentionally killing micro bacteria cells daily, mothers not fertilizing eggs, or men masturbating and their sperms cease to exist as a result?  

" We have several safety nets, here are the main 3: Condoms, Contraceptive, Monogomy. "

- Again these safety nets are not 100 % methods. 

"  If the women choose to avoid all 3 of these things, her pregnancy is the result of her own irresponsibility."

- Again condoms still break, and birth control fails.

" Also, abortion harms both the mother and the child in a case like this further by perpetuating violence."

- More likely than not, a woman who was raped had a fetus that was less than 5 months old and would therefore not be sentient. Also, abortion itself doesn't cause the mother to have the mental and physical toll that childbirth and pregnancy have on the mother. The only reason most mothers experience mental issues from abortion is due to society seeing it as immoral. For example, people made the same argument about homosexuals about how it causes mental issues when in reality it is only caused due to homosexuals being targeted against.  

" This is also an incredibly marginal case and we're arguing for the legality of abortion in general. If I conceded abortion in this circumstance is okay, would you then agree the other 99% of abortions are wrong? [1]"

- I've stated my argument already, my argument is that abortion is moral if the mother became pregnant outside of her control IE rape, the condom broke, or birth control failed, or if it's in the first 5 months before the baby becomes sentient. 


Sources, 





Con
I believe my argument of potentiality still stands, as it hasn't been addressed. I extend it into the coming round, as it's impossible to dictate the morality of abortion without addressing it. 


Um no I already stated that people who can feel pain have a right to life. ... even unconscious brains in vegative states still register pain. Going off of this, the mother would still be able to feel pain and therefore it would be wrong to kill her. 
It seems you aren't fully grasping my intended argument here. Many people feel great, even unbearable amounts of pain but still want to live. In cases like this - and in terms of pain, death would be a relief.

The capacity to feel pain is almost irrelevant to the discussion of abortion. Though I disagree with the premise of human life being determinable, consciousness is more valuable in this decision.

Ok so then if your main value of life is in existence and NOT on sentience nor intelligence, are you against people unintentionally killing micro bacteria cells daily, mothers not fertilizing eggs, or men masturbating and their sperms cease to exist as a result?   
I said the meaning of life is to be found in existence; not that existence is the meaning of life.

condoms still break, and birth control fails.
The idea here is that if the woman is using a condom, contraceptive, IUD, and in a monogomous relationship she could still (hypothetically) get pregnant. This is absurd to me, I'd imagine such a thing is as close to 0% statistic prevalence as possible.

With this in mind, abortions fail as well. Sometimes with much more severe and lethal consequences. Unless you prove it ethical I will not accept this as a counter.

abortion itself doesn't cause the mother to have the mental and physical toll that childbirth and pregnancy have on the mother. The only reason most mothers experience mental issues from abortion is due to society seeing it as immoral.

The reason most mothers experience mental issues after abortion is because they don't perceive the entity in a dehumanizing manner. It's also tied to regret, the rate of regret is close to 31% after an abortion, with 11% being prescribed psychotropic medicine. [4] The rate of psychiatric hospitalization rises up to 2.6x after abortion as well. [5]

I've stated my argument already, my argument is that abortion is moral if the mother became pregnant outside of her control IE rape, the condom broke, or birth control failed, or if it's in the first 5 months before the baby becomes sentient. 
Right, but it's dangerous to take such an incredibly marginal case and assume it bears any relevance to the majority. The vast majority of abortions that happen before 5 months are not a result of rape or out of the mother's control.



Round 4
Pro
" The capacity to feel pain is almost irrelevant to the discussion of abortion."

- Again so are you against women, not fertilizing eggs, men masturbating which terminates sperm, the unintentional killing of micro bacteria, or killing ants and other bugs? 

" I said the meaning of life is to be found in existence; not that existence is the meaning of life."

- If existence, sentience, and intelligence aren't the meaning of life, then please explain what is the meaning of life. 

" This is absurd to me, I'd imagine such a thing is as close to 0% statistic prevalence as possible."

- Even if it's close to a 0 % statistic, this doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The murder rate is also statistically rare, so then should we just not have the police force? The chances of a person falling off of a catwalk are pretty low, so then should we just not have barriers or fences.  

" With this in mind, abortions fail as well. Sometimes with much more severe and lethal consequences. "

- Abortion only fails 2-3 % of the time. Compared to the high chances of women feeling pain in pregnancy and birth, and possibly women dying from giving birth. Sometimes the police force fails to stop murders from happening, sometimes lifeguards fail to rescue people, sometimes safety cables snap. 

"  Unless you prove it ethical I will not accept this as a counter."

- This is not how society works, I do not have to prove that something is ethical, you have to prove to me why it isn't. Every action by default is morally neutral, for example, swimming is not good nor bad so it is neutral. Therefore if something is neutral, someone would have to prove why swimming is unethical or bad, if not it is still neutral. I am not arguing that abortions in the scenarios I mentioned are particularly good acts, I am arguing that aborting a fetus if it isn't sentient is a morally neutral act as it is neither good nor bad. 

" The reason most mothers experience mental issues after abortion is because they don't perceive the entity in a dehumanizing manner. "

- And that is the mothers own fault for not realizing that the fetus had no value, this has nothing to do with abortions. This is like blaming video games or tv to depression, it is not the tv nor video games fault, it is the person's fault for becoming depressed over a video game or tv. 

" It's also tied to regret, the rate of regret is close to 31% after an abortion, with 11% being prescribed psychotropic medications. "

- This is society and the mother's fault for valuing a non-sentient nor intelligent being. Again what about the negatives for giving birth or carrying a baby? Babys are not cheap and cost a great deal of money and time for the mother. Carrying the baby and giving birth also can cause many different mental and physical issues. For example, my boyfriend's mother giving birth to 3 children directly caused depression for her and caused her to have weight issues. My mother grew several different food allergies from having me. These aren't just random coincidences, it is backed up by science. According to pregnancybirthbaby.org, several different mental issues can arise from giving birth including depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder.  According to another article by womenshealth.org, pregnancy normally causes anemia, gestational diabetes, placental abruption, headaches, blurred vision, vaginal bleeding, and also depression. And once again after the birth we come into the issue of the baby taking a great deal of time and money to raise. Very plainly forcing a possible rape victim to go through such trauma's after just being raped, is repulsive. 

 " Right, but it's dangerous to take such an incredibly marginal case and assume it bears any relevance to the majority. The vast majority of abortions that happen before 5 months are not a result of rape or out of the mother's control."

- Yes and before 5 months since the baby isn't sentient nor intelligent, therefore the baby has no value and is just a cluster of cells. You still have not provided me with a trait that a fetus has that justifies its existence aside from it existing. But again just because it exists, doesn't mean it should have moral value. Again if you want to use an appeal to existence, then you have to be against people killing ants and other non-sentient bugs, people killing micro bacteria, and men masturbating which in turn kills sperm.  


Case and point, you still have not provided acquit reasons as to why we should value a being which isn't sentient nor intelligent in any way.  


SOURCES, 







Con
I have yet to see my argument or premise (whatever you wish to call it) addressed. Fetuses are pure potentiality, and by aborting one you're transforming that into an actualized negative death. 

"Again so are you against women, not fertilizing eggs, men masturbating which terminates sperm, the unintentional killing of micro bacteria, or killing ants and other bugs? "
The thing is, all of these things have value. The value is just significantly less relative to a human. I am against going out of the way to massacre insects, but if you step on a few then little observable harm was done.

I will make an analogy here, keep in mind I'm not valuing the ants and the baby equally: If you were to massacre enough insects the ecosystem would collapse; likewise, if you kill enough babies society will collapse.

"If existence, sentience, and intelligence aren't the meaning of life, then please explain what is the meaning of life. "
That IS quite the thing to ask of me. I know that it certainly isn't sentience and intelligence. I just don't think anyone is equipped to answer that. You're approaching life like it's a problem to be solved when the truth lies in the experience.

"The murder rate is also statistically rare, so then should we just not have the police force?"
The primary difference here is that the police aren't there as a safety net. They are a preventative measure like condoms. If the police were simply a safety net, they would love for people to break the law, probably even encourage it.

Regardless, your analogy isn't accurate. The rate of premature death is higher in the cases of abortion than it is in actual pregnancy. [6]

"Abortion only fails 2-3 % of the time. Compared to the high chances of women feeling pain in pregnancy and birth, and possibly women dying from giving birth. "
See source [6]. Also, psychological trauma (which is real pain) is linked to abortion and miscarriage at a higher rate than birth, so this point simply doesn't hold.

"This is not how society works, I do not have to prove that something is ethical, you have to prove to me why it isn't. Every action by default is morally neutral"
If you want to prove something should be legal, you have to prove many things. Namely, that there's actually a reason for it to be legal. Every action can't be morally neutral, it's simply not possible. Every action carries implicit value and has consequence. 

"that is the mothers own fault for not realizing that the fetus had no value, this has nothing to do with abortions. "
It's the mother's fault for valuing her child. This is incredibly wrong, from a biological standpoint and a moral one. By placing all your chips in sentience you've ironically removed humanity from the equation.

"This is society and the mother's fault for valuing a non-sentient nor intelligent being. Again what about the negatives for giving birth or carrying a baby? Babys are not cheap and cost a great deal of money and time for the mother. Carrying the baby and giving birth also can cause many different mental and physical issues. For example, my boyfriend's mother giving birth to 3 children directly caused depression for her and caused her to have weight issues."
Society values the baby for many of reasons. The first and foremost is that we require them to be born for society to survive more than a single generation. The second is that they're the embodiment of our ideals. The third is that life carries intrinsic value and purpose. The fourth is that babies are pure potential.

From a sociological perspective alone abortions cost outweighs the benefit. 

"You still have not provided me with a trait that a fetus has that justifies its existence aside from it existing. "

I've provided you with many reasons, both prior to this round and above this question. 

Source(s)

Round 5
Pro
Fetuses are pure potentiality, and by aborting one you're transforming that into an actualized negative death. 

This would be an appeal to potentiality which is not a very good basis to measure life on. If you think life is just simply based on potentiality, than again you have to be against men masturbating which destroys millions of sperm cells, and women not fertilizing their egg as these " beings" have a potential to life.

The value is just significantly less relative to a human.
Since you are framing your entire argument on potentiality and existence, than again what makes a human different than a bug in your logic. In my logic, humans matter more as they are sentient and intelligent. However this doesn't work in your logic, as this would mean they are equal since both humans and bugs exist.

If you were to massacre enough insects the ecosystem would collapse; likewise, if you kill enough babies society will collapse.

Before I begin, I am NOT justifying the genocide of people or babies. Well ecosystems can directly impact humans, mostly in rural areas. For example if an entire population of ants dissipated from an area, the local bug pesticide company may go out of business. If the local foxes or deer become an endangered species, than the local hunters will be forced to find other animals to kill or may go out of business. The point is that ecosystems can impact human civilization.

That IS quite the thing to ask of me. I know that it certainly isn't sentience and intelligence. I just don't think anyone is equipped to answer that. You're approaching life like it's a problem to be solved when the truth lies in the experience.

OK I'm sorry I think I asked the wrong question, what gives life it's value than? Since you don't care about sentient nor intelligence, and existence wouldn't make you logical consistent and is very arbitrary, please explain to me the value that life has.

The primary difference here is that the police aren't there as a safety net. They are a preventative measure like condoms. If the police were simply a safety net, they would love for people to break the law, probably even encourage it.
First of all, cops whether as a safety net or preventive measure or not, don't activily enjoy people breaking the law. Many have families and friends who would be devastated if the cop died. Secondly, preventive measure is not what cops are, they are a safety net. Preventive measures would be a measure you took to not get murdered or robbed. This could include locking doors, buying a security system, or maybe not walking down the dark scary alleyway. A safety net would be something that when the preventive measures fail and someone is in trouble, the safety net would essentially save that person. In this case, it would the the police force as at this point the preventive measures of home security and common sense have failed and due to this, the safety net/police force would save the person.

Also, psychological trauma (which is real pain) is linked to abortion and miscarriage at a higher rate than birth, so this point simply doesn't hold.
Despite the fact that your source isn't from a medical professional and looks to be from a bias source, it is a 100 % guarantee that raising a child costs a great deal of time and money to raise. We can debate the psychological issues a mother may obtain from pregnancy or abortion all we like, but the fact of the matter is that raising a child is not something every women or teenage girl can do.
If you want to prove something should be legal, you have to prove many things. Namely, that there's actually a reason for it to be legal.
I have already provided several reasons as to why it should be legal, namely in the cases of the mother becoming pregnant outside of the mothers control IE broken condoms, rape ETC, and if the abortion is performed during the first 5 months when the fetus isn't sentient nor intelligent.  All acts by default are legal until proven to be illegal. For example, I don't have to prove why walking around in sandals should be legal, you have to prove to me why it shouldn't be illegal. Regardless I have already proven as to why abortion should be legal, you have still yet to give me good enough reasons to believe it should be illegal.

Every action can't be morally neutral, it's simply not possible.
This is a straw-man argument, I NEVER said that all actions are morally neutral, I specifically states that all actions are morally neutral by DEFAULT.

It's the mother's fault for valuing her child. This is incredibly wrong, from a biological standpoint and a moral one.
In the context of this scenario, the fetus is not alive yet as it is not sentient nor intelligent which is proven by biology and science. If the mother values a non-sentient nor intelligent being, this is not abortions fault this is the fault of society, and the mother. Besides if the mother doesn't want to have an abortion, we aren't going to force her to have one. If a rape victim wants to carry the fetus anyways and have the child, that is purely her choice. There are many women who would be happier without having the baby however.

From a sociological perspective alone abortions cost outweighs the benefit. 


Lets examine the costs, the costs of abortion are the mother possibly might experience trauma and depression. The benefits are most likely the mother does not have to go through physical pain of carrying the baby or giving birth, the mother saves a great deal of time and money from not raising the baby, and the assuming their are birth complications that may put the mother at risk the mother's life would be saved.
Con
I will refrain from making arguments this round since it's the last. I don't think such a complex topic is solvable within 5 written rounds, and given the option I would happily discuss this over a microphone.

"This would be an appeal to potentiality which is not a very good basis to measure life on. If you think life is just simply based on potentiality"

"Since you are framing your entire argument on potentiality and existence, than again what makes a human different than a bug in your logic. In my logic, humans
matter more as they are sentient and intelligent. "
What do you think value itself is? Your intelligence argument is based upon the same potentiality as my own, the only difference is I'm applying it directly and consistently.

"Before I begin, I am NOT justifying the genocide of people or babies. Well ecosystems can directly impact humans, mostly in rural areas. For example if an entire population of ants dissipated from an area, the local bug pesticide company may go out of business. If the local foxes or deer become an endangered species, than the local hunters will be forced to find other animals to kill or may go out of business. The point is that ecosystems can impact human civilization. "
By definition that's exactly what large-scale abortion is. I also never claimed ecosystems couldn't impact humans. The potential of an ant, or that of a microbe is incredibly less than that of a human baby.

"OK I'm sorry I think I asked the wrong question, what gives life it's value than? Since you don't care about sentient nor intelligence, and existence wouldn't make you logical consistent and is very arbitrary, please explain to me the value that life has. "
The question of value is a question of potential and purpose. You seemed to have confined potential to intelligence and sentience while completely avoiding the more important question.

"First of all, cops whether as a safety net or preventive measure or not, don't activily enjoy people breaking the law."
I agree, and I never said they did enjoy such a thing. I said in the hypothetical circumstance they were a safety net they would allow crimes to happen, the objective wouldn't be to stop someone from committing a crime.

"Despite the fact that your source isn't from a medical professional and looks to be from a bias source"
Except it's a systematic review published by a certified gynecologist and a man with a PhD in bioethics.

"Regardless I have already proven as to why abortion should be legal, you have still yet to give me good enough reasons to believe it should be illegal. "
I have provided many reasons for it to be illegal. A few examples of my 'reasons': harm to the mother, harm to the baby, harm to our future, etc.

"In the context of this scenario, the fetus is not alive yet as it is not sentient nor intelligent which is proven by biology and science. If the mother values a non-sentient nor intelligent being, this is not abortions fault this is the fault of society, and the mother. "
Actually the fetus is alive and constitutes life, just not necessarily 'sentient' life as you've put it. Women are biologically preconditioned to ascribe emotional value to the child -- logically justified or not, that is the case.

"Lets examine the costs, the costs of abortion are the mother possibly might experience trauma and depression. The benefits are most likely the mother does not have to go through physical pain of carrying the baby or giving birth, the mother saves a great deal of time and money from not raising the baby, and the assuming their are birth complications that may put the mother at risk the mother's life would be saved. "
The great thing here is that these are not sociological arguments. I'd love for anyone name me a single valid sociological benefit to abortion.

"This is a straw-man argument, I NEVER said that all actions are morally neutral, I specifically states that all actions are morally neutral by DEFAULT. "
I said in no uncertain terms that it is impossible for an action to be morally neutral. That was my point, and if there ever was a clear case of projection this would be it.

In response to your assertion of strawmanning: I have done no such thing throughout this entire debate. However, if I pointed the finger back at you I don't think you dispute misrepresenting many of my own arguments. After this last round, I'm entirely convinced you didn't argue in good faith.