Abortion should be a basic right because every individual deserves autonomy over their own body and the freedom to make personal healthcare decisions without political or societal interference.

RFV Part 1
Title and Description,
I think Abortion is vaguely defined here.

WellThatsIntellectual R1
0. Abortion 'does have ties to bodily autonomy, personal freedom, and healthcare,
But I 'really think you should have defined and set the limits of what you mean by abortion in the description 'or round 1. . . But you 'do state what 'you mean by abortion in comment 4 of debate, I 'suppose.
1. I'm not sure bodily autonomy 'is non-negotiable. We've had the draft before in America (Not that I am saying I agree or disagree with the draft)
I can imagine people forcing another person to let them on their boat, if the first people's boat sinks. Good Samaritan laws (Not that I am saying I agree or disagree with such)
Other examples I imagine.
2. People 'do argue various cases medically warrant abortion.
3. Orphanages 'do exist as an option. Not that such worked out too well for Nicolae Ceaușescu and Romania, but one could argue particulars.
But Question is often when is a human life a human life.
4. Eh, some Dad's don't 'want a kid either, don't want the bills or obligation. Though of course 'does effect a woman more. But that's biology, war often going to effect men more, but that's biology.
South was economically hurt by not having slaves and didn't have the North's infrastructure. Doesn't mean they 'should have slaves. As one might argue women being worse off doesn't mean they 'should abort an unborn.
5. True, it's a mental and physical drain. I'm reminded of the South Park Episode with the 'really late term abortion Cartman's mom considered, eight years a bit late.
But of course Pro 'does say in comments 'when they think an abortion should be done.
But for some Pro Life people, a life is a life.
6. While there 'is an argument for regulating bad behaviors, some people still hold to a dislike of normalizing said action, dislike participating in said action, or practice Deontological Ethics on the question.
7. Privacy 'is important, but some people still like child services checking on some parents.

Pro brings up relevant considerations, my contrary thoughts aside.

befairbruh R1
1. Brings up the Pro Life high valuation of the unborn.
2. Brings up the Pro Life valuation, and that other methods can/could be pursued.
3. Brings up the Pro Life valuation, and argues for trying other methods.
One could argue such methods are not always easily available in society though.
4. Suggests societal considerations that could be made for women.
5. Brings up that some people are mentally harmed or haunted by their abortions.
This one a 'bit arguable, as societies vary, as well as it lacking statistics, but Pro's also lacked statistics.
It also lacks a bit in 'physical harm, compared to Pro's, though mental pain 'can result in physical harm.
6. Suggests focus on education and healthcare rather than focusing on making the practice legal.
'Questionable how well it would 'work though.
7. Brings up the Pro Life valuation.

I think Con manages to address all of Pros points, though Pro is still capable of addressing and blunting Cons arguments.
Hm, how does one address a difference in value?
I suppose one can disprove other side, Pro could claim/argue that Abortions done early enough are not killing people.
I suppose one can point out contrary goals and actions, as Pro did with 6. Just need to further argument.

RFV Part 2
WellThatsIntellectual R2
I see various religions and beliefs about abortion,
But then does debate not then become regional on whether people would agree of disagree?
Pro says when fetus starts to get important organs, is when it gets it's soul.
It seems a but of a jump to me.
Pro argues for killing (By there perspective) ensouled fetuses (24 weeks), as mercy killings.
I think Pro could have done better in mercy killing argument by giving specific examples of said unborn. Fetuses who are expected to die in agonizing pain within a week of birth, or are missing 95% of their brain or something.
Though the most extreme of Pro Lifes might still disagree, it 'would allow 'some abortions.
I still think not 'specifically defining what type of abortions in the debate description was a mistake, but Pro arguably 'is describing what they meant in Round 2.
A 'problem though, is that Pro has not yet addressed Cons arguments in Round 1.
Cons arguments aren't 'perfect, but in my view they 'do Address Pros arguments, Con's arguments in Round 1 have faults, same as Pros arguments, but Con has addressed Pro's arguments. Con has not quite fully.

befairbruh R2
Makes arguments on how some religions ban or discourage abortions.
Con 'still has problem of comment section number 4.
"One: An abortion within 24 weeks of the pregnancy
Two: If the parent finds out that the child is severely disabled and/or severely ill after the 24th week, they should still have the right to abort the child."

R3 and R4
No show for WellThatsIntellectual.

My conclusions
Hm, should I assume debate is whether said 2 abortions should be legal in all countries? This country? That countries 'ought take this view?

I think Pro has stronger argument for the severely disabled and/or severely ill unborn.
But that Con makes sufficient arguments against "An abortion within 24 weeks of the pregnancy" for various reasons stated in R1.
I think Pro 'could have argued against Cons arguments in round 1, but they were not. Though religion 'was addressed in R2 by Pro, so did Con.

Anyway, my vote to Con. Arguments.
Neither used sources.
Both understandable.
Pro missing rounds, a conduct hit.

@Round 2
I don't think it's 'bad to use religion in debate.

But I think it works best when one's audience and/or opponent shares your religious values.

The arguments that appeal to people, depend on their values,
Even for something such as guns,
People will use different arguments in different countries, I assume.

i think there are exceptions like rape or incest perhaps risks of the pregnancy itself for the mother, but in general abortion to a degree is murder

Well, no. I think aborting should be legal in two situations.

One: An abortion within 24 weeks of the pregnancy

Two: If the parent finds out that the child is severly disabled and/or severly ill after the 24th week, they should still have the right to abort the child.

In my opinion, and I think people would agree with me. Aborting a severly disabled and/or severly ill after the 24th week, causes less stress and mental damage than having the baby. Because for some parents it just isn't an option to raise a severly disabled or ill child.

And in some cases, the doctors tell the parents that their child will only be able to survive for let's say two years. I think they should also have the right to abort after the 24th week.

Thanks for the clarification,
It still sounds like political or societal interference,
But I get what you mean.

It's similar to people saying owning a gun or driving a car should be a basic right,
But many places have 'some sort of limit, requirements, tests, times you can lose said right/privilege.

I imagine a number of people end up in the middle between extremes, for a number of policies and laws.
But there 'are laws and people at the extreme ends.

Would your opponent then have to argue for no abortions for 'any reasons?

You can not abort a child after the 24th week of a pregnancy.

After that point, you will have to carry the baby until it is born. If there are dangerous circumstances during a pregnancy the doctors will try to safe both the childs and mothers life.

As the pro in this debate, I support abortion as a basic right but acknowledge that rights come with moral and ethical considerations. In the specific scenario of a viable fetus minutes before natural birth, where there is no risk to the mother’s life, no pain, and no bodily damage, I do **not** support abortion. At this stage, the fetus is effectively an independent life that could survive outside the womb, and terminating it would no longer align with the principles of bodily autonomy—it would instead shift into a moral question about ending a viable life unnecessarily. My stance emphasizes that the right to abortion is about protecting bodily autonomy and mitigating harm, not permitting arbitrary termination of viable life without cause.

So no, I do not. I believe that after the 24 weeks, a mother should carry the baby. (She would have no choice but to, because that's what the law states) And what she does with the baby after it's birth is her own decision. Keep it or give it up for adoption.

Are there any 'limits to this freedom of abortion?

Say 5 minutes before a child would be born naturally, and the mother is in a 0.00023% chance of death.
Does Pro in this debate support abortion at that point?

Suppose there was no chance of death, suppose there was no pain, suppose no bodily damage,
Just a person wanting bodily autonomy over themself,
Does Pro in this debate support abortion at that point?

I only ask, for clarification of the debate parameters.