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

1. My opponent has stated that just as there are inherent restrictions on the right to liberty that then there should also be limitations on the right to life. And indeed there are. Many states apply the death penalty for crimes: treason, terrorism, espionage, federal murder, large-scale drug trafficking, and attempting to kill a witness, juror, or court officer in certain cases. If you commit certain crimes then your right to life is forfeit. I would, however, state that as an unborn child has not committed a mass murder or act of terrorism then their right to life should remain intact. My opponent then moves on to state that a child's right to life is inferior to the right to liberty of the mother because (s)he is not self-aware. however scientific studies have shown that true self-awareness does not even begin to develop until around 15-24 months. Long after the baby has been born.(1) does this mean that if a child somehow threatens the liberty of the parents after being born that killing them should be legal as their right to life is inferior? this seems to be the case as my opponent has ceded that the fetus will be considered a person and as such should be treated as a person would. Perhaps, my opponent meant simple consciousness? if this were the case, then they would have to recognize that what we would call consciousness does begin in the womb. (2) One should also consider simply the logical and very real consequences if a "person" is defined only in terms of the actual exercising of "rational attributes" or of "sentience." What would this mean for the following list of adult human beings with diminished "rational attributes": e.g., the mentally ill, the mentally disabled, the depressed elderly, Alzheimers and Parkinsons patients, drug addicts, alcoholics and for those with diminished "sentience," e.g., the comatose, patients in a "vegetative state," paraplegics, and other paralyzed and disabled patients, diabetics or other patients with nerve or brain damage, etc.? Would they then be considered as only human beings but not also as human persons? Would that mean that they would not have the same ethical and legal rights and protections as those adult human beings who are considered as persons? Is there really such a "split" between a human being and a human person? this is, of course dealing in legal rights. 2. the problem with my opponent's second argument; is that it doesn't address the main purpose of the argument. Indeed, if we were sentencing people to pregnancy for crimes such as theft or fraud then we could consider it cruel or unusual. however, this analogy is not fully sound. In the event of committing a crime, retributive justice would then apply. (punishments are proportionate to the crime.) that's why sentences range from a slap on the wrist and a firm "don't do it again" and lethal injection. When you are talking about the biological correlation between sex and pregnancy, however, the difference becomes clear. When you have sex, (again, I would refer you to my first argument.) one should expect to reproduce. We are not sentencing the mother to pregnancy for a crime. All we're doing is stating that you have brought a child into this world. A genetically distinct human being that will soon grow larger and develop its faculties. we are not going to rob this child of its right to life because you made a mistake. unless you've been in solitary confinement for your entire life, you know what pregnancy is and you know what it entails. sex is similar in a way, to signing a release. It means that you accept the risks of your conduct. again, sex is not for pleasure. sex is for reproduction. 3. Next, my opponent suggests that we deliver lethal injection to children before we begin dismembering their body. However, even the most modern forms of lethal injection have come under fire from the scientific community and bioethicists because of it's potential to cause extreme pain.(3) We could very well be giving the child death by asphyxiation rather than death by dismemberment. My opponent then states that the ability to feel pain should in no way justify not sparing the child. This brings to light an obvious double standard and abhorrent moral deficit in the pro. earlier in this very round, my opponent stated that pro-life policies cannot be mandated while comparing it to cruel and unusual punishment for the mother. then states that a child, completely innocent in every regard other than the fact that it dared to exist, should be subject either to a method of execution that we would never inflict on our worst criminals; Or a method of execution that many across the nation are calling too cruel to use on mass murderers and child rapists. I have no more to say on that matter. in my opponent's next point, he argues that he would not be against the transfer of the fetus to an artificial womb. great. irrelevant but great. the resolution stated that we are specifically working in the status quo BEFORE such a technology exists. after that, this entire debate wouldn't be happening. and finally, he brings up the right to liberty being a termination clause. Once I started my research I began trying to look for legal loopholes to get around termination clauses. that's when I realized that this analogy should end. So let's just drop the analogy and work in plain speech. Again refer back to my previous arguments about why the mother's right to liberty does not supersede the child's right to life. even if we were to hold with equal weight, one could not supersede the other. so I suppose it's up to the voters as to whose argument for which right gets to trump the other. the mother's liberty, or the child's right to life. (1)www.scientificamerican.com (2)https://www.princeton.edu... (3)http://journals.plos.org...