Abortion should only be legal until a way is found to safely bring an embryo to term in a lab.

I apologize for my misconceptions on the format of debates on this site. my rule 4 on arguments on final speeches was developed from prior experience with LD, PF, and policy debates and I cede to the change. I will first defend my own case then move on to attack my opponent's arguments. 1. My opponent has conceded that the child is indeed a person for the sake of debate, therefore we shall move directly to my second contention. 2. My opponent has stated that the liberty of the mother carries equal weight with the child's right to life. Liberty is defined by the Cambridge English Dictionary as the freedom to live as you wish and go where you want (1) however, we can see that this right to liberty does have limits. obviously, we can't just wander into people's houses or become rapists or murderers and not expect consequences. furthermore, the parents of the child did exercise their right to liberty when they engaged in sexual intercourse. they lived how they wanted and did what they wanted, now they have to deal with the consequences as we all do for any action for better or for worse. So we arrive at the question, is the child's right to life interchangeable with erasing the consequences of the parent's actions? it's also important to note that the Declaration of independence guarantees the pursuit of happiness not happiness itself. Next, he brings up a hypothetical in which it's too expensive to transfer the child to an artificial womb. as this is a theoretical technology I will make my argument on the closest available technology. surrogate mothers. while it is rather expensive to obtain a surrogate, if you can't afford it you will simply need to carry your child to term. On average, out of pocket expenses are at about 3,400$ for families with health insurance. (2) if you don't have health insurance or can't afford a 3,400$ expense, then I refer you back to my original argument on the purpose of sex. if you had sex and can't afford to carry a child, then you have made a drastic logical error and all I can tell you is to perhaps go to a local church or maternal charity. Most of them would give you financial aid. 3. My opponent argues that the child's right to simply exist, is not greater than the mothers "liberty" secondly, I never claimed that carrying a child is a minor inconvenience. it's a rather large one however, I still hold that the child's right to life is above it. and all of those things that my opponent mentioned that pregnancy entails are all true. If you aren't willing or ready to deal with them then I refer you again to the logical error. Also, the bit about kicking the smoking habit seems like a good thing to me. My opponents argument about pain can be attacked by my previous statement about consequences. if you do drugs, it will have a detrimental effect on your body. if you drink heavily the same is true. all of these actions have consequences. Having sex as I've mentioned is not for pleasure, is the same way. you engage in it for purposes other than reproducing you'd best be prepared for the consequences. For my opponents tenant-landlord analogy, I have this counter. the child does, in fact, have a lease. the lease is stated directly in the Declaration of Independence as cited by my opponent in his first case. The right to life. The right to merely exist in this world is the child's lease. also, I like the word "inconvenienced" my opponent used to describe abortion let's take a look at the "inconvenience" according to Dr.John Spencer, a child would likely have it's spine and skull crushed and it's body dismembered then be sucked out through a tube in little bloody pieces.(3) it's also important to note that scientific studies have shown that children can react to touch at 8 weeks.(4) the legal limit for abortions is 22-26 weeks.(5) long after pain receptors have been developed. as for my opponent's final argument about the rate of research and pro-life funding, well maybe we're a little bit too wrapped up with the knowledge that 1.5 billion babies or roughly a quarter of the world's population have been aborted over the last 50 years which I do believe is significantly more than Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Josef Stalin combined. so we put our resources into preventing this while the era of motherless births draws closer. sources. (1) http://dictionary.cambridge.org... (2)childbirthconnection.org (3) Dr.John Spencer (4)http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com... (5) theatlantic.com