The abortion of fetuses which do not endanger the mother should be outlawed

Pro’s insistence on separateness:1. What the pro believes is what is inside the pregnant woman is in fact a separate human being, and the termination of that separate human being is immoral.2. The evidence is that the foetus is a separate human being.3. The pro claims the right to force the child to live because the child is a separate individual from the mother. The word “believes”, as used in point 1 of my opponents rebuttal, is very telling as Pro repeatedly, without evidence, asserts that a zygote to fetus, is a “separate human being”. To assert that a foetus is separate/not connected/not joined to something else is to ignore biological fact. Should you wish to test the veracity of this claim, attempt if you will to separate the human incubator (the mother) from the foetus before the 23rd week of gestation; the results and effect speak volumes. Even if Pro would force child birth, as he declares in point 3, it would appear that nature does not recognise this authority: COMPLETED WEEKS OF GESTATION AT BIRTH (using last menstrual period) CHANCE OF SURVIVAL 21 weeks and less 0% 22 weeks 0-10%* 23 weeks 10-35% ... ... * Most babies at 22 weeks are not resuscitated because survival without major disability is so rare. (1) The current spirit of law which seeks to limit abortions to foetal viability is approximately in line with the table above, and clearly takes heed of these biological facts in weighing up the rights of the mother; to not be forced to child birth; agency over her body including dis/allowing any type of life in potential to be incubated there, against the rights of a life in potential.(2) The contradiction of the poll and the unanswered premise Gallup polls show that only 29% of all US citizens believe that abortion should be made legal no matter what the circumstances (1). The Roe v. Wade decision was a complete breach of state’s rights. The Con has analysed the full polling data from the Pros reference and discovered some interesting points that appear to contradict the above:1. 53 % of people say that the outcome of Roe v. Wade was a good thing2. Only 29% of people would have the Roe v. Wade decision overturned3. Only 37 % would seek a constitutional amendment in banning abortion and only 36 % would favour a similar ban at state level.4. 48 % of people considered themselves to be pro-choice5. 60 % of people believe abortion should be legal within the first three months of pregnancy Lastly when specific scenarios are presented to people, the favourable view of abortion legality is generally higher than resting beliefs:-Mother is in medical danger-83 %-If a chance exists that the child will be mentally disabled- 56%-If a chance exists that the child will be born with a life threatening illness-67%-If the pregnancy is a product of rape or incest- 77%-If a chance exists that the child will be born with down syndrome-49% I am reminded by the last statistics above, that Pro has neglected to feedback on the similar list of obvious reasons to admit abortions that I produced in the opening (reproduced below): -If birth control was practiced but failed-If the pregnancy is a product of rape -If the pregnancy is a product of an incestuous relationship -If the pregnancy is part of an arranged or child marriage -If a significant risk exists of passing on a genetically transferable disease -If pregnancy is a result of mis- or under- education -If the wom(a)n was not in a culpable state of mind at the time of conception (this includes acute and chronic psychological states of mind affected by neurophysiology or external factors)-alcohol or drug addicted mothers (*not included in the original opening)Is it because to admit one, would in fact invalidate my opponent’s entire premise (repeated here for clarity): “The abortion of foetuses, which do not endanger the mother should be outlawed.” Who is tyrannical in this instance? The nine unelected jurors took the decision of states on major issues away in a de facto tyrannical way. It equates a human being to property. It is clear that Pro does not understand the reason why the constitution is the over-ruling and overarching law of the land and that no law, state or federally sponsored may be in dissonance with it.(3) This is to ensure that the inalienable rights of the individual cannot simply be voted or legislated away, by a mob majority. To suggest that the nine highly trained and experienced legal minds that tested the issue against the constitution was somehow erroneous, is dubious at best. Furthermore, for someone who would negate the rights of established human life in favour of life in potential and who would claim physical agency over a woman, at the point of a gun and retributive justice, is hardly apt to accuse anyone or anything of being “tyrannical” or as treating another as “property”. The rehashed value argument, asserted without evidence by Pro 1.Using this logic, what stop a mother who does not want to bear the responsibility of their already born child from murdering her child. 2. If the human race does not plant the flag of human value at the conception of life, there is no defense against the murder of any individual. This leads to justifications of horrific ideas such as the holocaust or gulag camps. The spirit of this debate is that the Pro and Pro-lifers are unable to distinguish between the value of life in potential and already established life and what rights if any, life in potential has equal to or over and above established life. The Con has no problem in making this distinction-which is why the Con is at peace with a woman’s right to agency over her own body and uncomfortable with claiming full agency over it, before even the point of conception, and then to be indefinitely poised to take control of her again, should she fail to repress the sexual instinct (Pro has stated he is against contraception too). In my opening I challenged Pro to provide evidence that abortions lead to the natural denigration of already established human life. There are many examples of countries that have legalized abortion, including his, for significant periods of time. He has still failed to produce evidence that abortions lead directly to a situation that “deters basic human worth which can lead to the murder of millions of people ” or his assertion as set out in point 2:as far as I am aware, Hitler and Stalin were not inspired to their respective genocides because of abortion. The fallacy of equating abortion with murder1. The situation is comparable to killing a human being outside of the womb2. What the pro finds evil is the execution of the most innocent part of our society for no reason besides the burden they pose. This is the cheapest stock in trade trick of the Pro life’s position. ‘Abortion is murder’ is a statement as used and used up as any you will find in the debate. It is not an appeal to logic or nuanced reason but to blunt emotion. So allow me to respond in kind with an emotional argument of my own. Seeing that Pro would equate abortion with murder and a summary execution, I would like to know what his prescribed punishment would be for transgressors if he saw his legal wish fulfilled? With the vast majority of Conservatives being for the death penalty, for the crime of murder, which if we would follow the faulty logic that already established life is comparable to life in potential and the ending thereof is murder, death should be the punishment, should it not?(4) I would like the Pro to respond honestly: if his Mother, Aunt, Sister, Girlfriend or Wife, or even a female acquaintance would choose an abortion, would he give her up for the gallows or to ride the lightning? If he would refuse this or prescribe a less severe punishment, he would in the same breath have admitted that abortion is not equal to murder and that life in potential is not equal to life already established. If however he would seek to be consistent in his views and seek capital punishment, then I would accuse him of being far from the moral authority in this argument. The truth is, if Pro is at all concerned with maternal safety, he cannot turn a blind eye to the statistic that more women die in child birth than they do from abortions and still manage the hubris to force a woman to risk her life in such a manner, against her will.(5) Furthermore, if he were somehow to affect legal banning of abortion, the evidence suggests that abortions won’t diminish to the level he hopes but instead will only prompt a slew of unsafe back-yard or self-attempts at abortions, where maternal safety is immediately jeopardised to levels of morbidity. If maternal safety and the continuing ability to produce progeny is his main concern, he should rather vote Pro-choice.(6) Finally, I would like to draw further attention to the inconsistency of thought in my opponents’ logic and philosophy; I refer to point 2. He would not allow a woman the right to end a pregnancy for pragmatic reasons such as the financial (after all it is estimated that it will cost $226 000 to raise a child to the age of 17)(7). He does however assume the right to force a woman to a life of maternal incubation and financial and physical servitude and then absolve himself of all further responsibilities. As per my opponents profile he is against any forms of social welfare. This is a commonality to be found in the Conservative, Pro-life camp. Very sorry but that is not how the social contract works. Even if you could affect such a law, expect or rather offer unreservedly to balance that power with subsidising the outcome.(8)(9) One would think that in possession of the foundational ideas above, the Pro-life Conservatives would be the ones arguing for more abortions, not less or none. Thank you (1)http://www.spensershope.org...(2)https://bit.ly...(3)https://bit.ly...(4)https://bit.ly...(5)https://usat.ly...(6)https://bit.ly...(7)https://ti.me...(8)https://bit.ly...(9)https://bit.ly...