Abortion should be illegal

Pros BOP Ill do contentions this round and refutations in the next. Resolved - Abortion should be illegal Meaning abortion should be banned in all cases. Let's get on to the actual topic at hand. Contention 1 ) Ectopic Pregnancies and Pregnancies that can endanger the mother. When you have to competing choices in regards to life. All factors must be taken into consideration. First my adversary must establish that the fetus is a human life and that it is in fact murder. If he is not able to do so, then the mother killing a fetus is morally permissible and this is a de facto truth. IF he is able to establish that, then we have to competing lives. How should that be determiner. If one person is going to die regardless, it seems absurd for the government to decide who that will be. The choice itself should be made by the family and the mother herself. Especially the mother. You cannot tell her that she has no right to self defense. Any one under US or most countries laws, have the right to reasonable defend themselves under the law. Meaning if something is causing your body enough harm where it can actually kill you, you have the right to fight back with deadly force. The same is true here. A fetus is engaging the mother and harming her to the point of death. The mother should have the right to reasonably defend herself, just as the fetus should. At that point it should be removed from a government perspective, because you are denying the right of the mother to actually defend herself reasonably. If you had a baby in a room with you that was going to blow up and the only way to defuse this was talk to the doctor. The issue is that the doctor was not there. The only choice you had was to kill the baby in order to save your own life is it morally permissible to do so? Some would say yes, and so would I. As would any reasonable person. Means to and end is always a question especially in regards to self defense that could save your own life. Contention 2 ) Rape Judith Thompson proposed a wonderful analogy for this, called the violinist analogy. It goes like this " Suppose you wake up one morning, and you find yourself without your knowledge attached to a violinist. Come to find out a society of music lovers kidnapped you in hopes that you could save him, because you were the only person that met the pre requisites to sustain his condition. You call the doctor and he notes and apologies for you being kidnapped and informs you that in 9 months, they will have the stuff that is required to make the guy better. If you remove the chord prior to then the guy will die" From a moral stand point, there is no real way to answer this question. Morality itself is derived from the situation and there is nothing immoral about removing yourself from pain. 9 months worth of emotional suffered, damage, loss of job activities, etc is reason enough to remove yourself from this person if you feel the need. The main reason being that you had no choice in the matter. You were forced into this. Pregnancy is often the same. Someone forced themselves on you and raped you under no choice of your own, and banning abortion would legally make you responsible for someones else's choice. There are also legal issuing revolving around this. The federal government cannot force you to do things that violate your right to autonomy. They can not force you to donate a organ to a dying person, as your body is your private property. The stuff in your body is your property. The same is the case here. The federal government cannot compel you to keep a fetus in your body when it was forcibly placed there against your will. You should have the right to chose. This is true with organ donning, and it is true with this situation. The government should have no say over your autonomy in regards to your bodily rights.