(plz read carefully, I advocate abortion) To improve abortion laws, Roe v Wade should be repealed.

Welcome to this crazy debate. I advocate repealing Roe V. Wade so that abortion can become more easily attainable. I argue that Roe V Wade places unfair and unjust restrictions on women. To make it clear to whomever takes this debate, I am for legalized abortion. Some history of Roe V Wade from wikipedia "The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health", and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother")" My argument stems only from this passage. I know wikipedia isn't the most scholarly source so if necessary I will find the actual opinion that states these facts. I only hope to prove that Roe V Wade places unfair and unjust restrictions on women. 1. Trimesters? The Supreme Court divides fetal time into trimesters. This is done ambiguously. there is nothing separating a fetus that is 6 months old from one who is 6 months and a day. Developmentally, the fetus doesn't become significantly different (in regards to whether we can view the fetus as a human life) between 5 and 7 months. This is sheer ambiguity. Why does this matter? Because one CANNOT get an abortion after the second trimester unless the fetus is not viable (with all the medicinal help in the world) or if the mother's life is in significant danger. Almost all fetus' can survive after being six months old due to medical technology now so the viability issue is moot. The only way to have an abortion after 6 months is if the mother is in danger. 2. Defining life. In effect, the supreme court defined when life started. After 6 months or the second trimester, the fetus is a human life. Whether one agrees with this or not, the supreme court does not have the ability to define what life is. If anything the medical community should and they were not consulted to make this decision. One can argue that the fetus is considered a life after the first trimester as states can regulate abortion after 3 months. I wouldn't go so far as saying the fetus is considered a human at this point as abortion is still legal, but the methods used to abort can be regulated. Examples of this are the ban on partial birth abortions. 3. What this means? Women cannot get an abortion after 6 months due to Roe V Wade, unless the health of the mother is in danger. This applies to everyone, including raped women or those kidnapped, etc. Women cannot get all the different types of abortions after 3 months. One type of abortion is not equivalent to another. Some are much better than other sin certain situations. Chemical abortion (which is the real reason abortion rates have gone down as chemical abortion isn't counted) is great early on but not late. Surgical abortion is alright later but aborting the fetus in more gruesome ways is cheaper and healthier for the mother sometimes. I see no benefit from outlawing or mandating regulation of this abortion but I do see an infringement on liberty. The supreme court deciding what is "human life" is troublesome too but doesn't have much relevance to my case yet. I figured I'd put it out there. Good luck. I hope someone can rebut me well as whenever I say I want to repeal Roe V Wade to further support abortion I get yelled at for being a conservative. If you can prove me wrong, maybe I'll stop advocating this position and quit getting yelled at. Also, I am only putting this last bit in as the last debate I posted, the opponent didn't read my opening argument. I am not arguing over goodness or badness of abortion. I simply am trying to find out whether Roe V Wade places unjust and/or unfair restrictions on women in regards to abortion.