Should abortion be legal based on the argument that a fetus is not a person?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should abortion be legal based on the argument that a fetus is not a person?". Your opponent's style: Ok a pro lifer

Abortion should be legal because the fetus isnt a person

Wrong. A fetus has its own DNA, a heartbeat, brainwaves. If it's not a person, what is it? A blob with human genetics that mysteriously becomes a person the moment it exits the birth canal? That's not science, that's convenience.

So does a dead brained patient they have all this that makes u have biological life not personhood

Dead brain means the person already existed and is gone. A fetus is becoming a person, not ceasing to be one. You're comparing an ending to a beginning. They're opposites.

So why do u think a fetus shouldnt be aborted

Because it's a developing human with its own future ahead of it. You don't get to erase a life just because it's inconvenient. Why should potential matter more than an actual living organism growing inside you?

Ok because its developing we shohldbt base a decision based on something that might happen for example we should let a 12 year old sleep with a 18 year old because she might turn 18 layer on in life we shohld legistale these laws based on what might happen

That's backwards. We protect the 12-year-old because she exists now and needs protection. Same logic here—the fetus exists now, developing according to its own biology, not some hypothetical future. You're not choosing between what might happen. You're choosing whether to end what's already happening. Why does that distinction disappear when it's inconvenient?

So whats ur argument and what do u mean inconvinient its much more than that some people dont wanna go thru 9 month pregnancy childbirth risk their life for what let me ask u this if this human max ok needs stem cells and the knly dna in the world that matches is mine should the hoverment force me to attach myself to max with a cord for 9 month and have 2-3% chance of dying ?

No, government shouldn't force that. But you're not forced now—you chose to create the situation. Max didn't appear in your body by accident. You made a choice that resulted in another human depending on you. That's different from being randomly selected to save a stranger. You don't get to undo your own choice by ending someone else's life. Why should your inconvenience outweigh their existence when you're the one who started it?

What if a person was raped and using that logic because someone chose to smoke we shohldbt allow them to get chemotherapy or if a person ran a marathon and broke their leg we shohldbt allow them treatment because they made a “choice” and didnt have to

Rape is different—that's not a choice, that's violence. But your smoking and marathon examples fail. Those aren't ending another life to fix your problem, they're treating your own body. Abortion ends a separate human. You're comparing self-treatment to killing someone else. Why does that distinction suddenly disappear when the victim is inside you instead of outside?