Abortion Should Be Abolished

Many thanks to my opponent for a civil debate. Abortion. Always a contentious issue. On one side of the fence are the immovable idealists, with their pre-set moral agenda, on the other side are the pragmatists with their more objective and detatched opinions. How society makes judgements and formulates legislation should be based on a balanced, rational decision that takes into account both sides of the argument. Ultimately no individual or group has the greater authority to be able to define what is actually right or wrong. One sided legislation is authoritarian and undemocratic and surely undermines the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution. Pro asserts that "Abortion should be abolished" and maybe this would be the collective decision of the U.S. people, if they were given the chance to have their say. Pro. dismisses the recent Irish referendum on abortion as pointless and incomparable, but I would assert that it is clearly indicative of a shift in Western public opinion, from old fashioned moral standards towards a more pragmatic, pro choice view point. Murder is either murder or it is not. Rationalising murder using an assumed age innocence ratio, is somewhat cynical to say the least and inevitably results in a display of selective morality and consequent double standards. In order to retain any credibility as the high moralist I think it reasonable to expect no variation in the anti-abortionist's condemnation of the taking of life. Pro clearly has the ability to be selectively moral, one moment, they have an overwhelming concern for the lives of innocent human beings, the next moment they are able to easily override that principle in justification of their defence of national honour. It is wrong for a U.S citizen to abort a foetus but justifiable for a U.S citizen to take the life of an Afghan child, clearly selective morality and double standards. Is a an embryo or early stage foetus a human being or an organic mass with the potential to be a human being. Ask an expert and you will inevitably receive one of two answers, depending on which side of the fence the expert is standing. The anti- abortionist will obviously always choose promote the opinion that suits their cause, and the pragmatist will do the same, however I think it fair to suggest that the pragmatist by the very nature of their pragmatism will always consider both sides of the argument, whereas the anti-abortionist or high moralist is more likely to dismiss opposing opinion, out of hand and without due consideration. I personally, with realistic consideration have concluded that an embryo or early stage foetus is, a non-sentient organic mass, a dependant extension of it's mother and as such the responsibility of the mother. I would therefore assert that the decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy should be solely the decision of the mother and not the decision of a third party and certainly not the decision of a third party pressure group. It is all to easy to pontificate from the side lines. As long as the decision and subsequent action to terminate a pregnancy is undertaken within the current legislated parameters, then I would suggest that at this current moment in time the choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy should be socially permissible.