Restricted abortion should be legal

My warrants for taking the other side for Pro's claim of Restricted Abortions should be Legal are simply: 1. Abortion terminates an innocent living human organism. 2. Human life begins at fertilization. Pro's main arguments against my warrants are: 1. Protecting the potentiality of human life is not warranted during the early development of the living human organism. This is why I wasted a whole round to try and find out the exact point when Pro thinks we should protect the potentiality of human life in a pregnancy. This is the critical point because at what point does a living human life deserve to be recognized as a human and receive protections? There is no clear point for Pro's side with only statements of "I am open to the idea that maybe abortion should be more restricted in the later stages". My argument is that protecting the potentiality of human life is at a clear point - human life begins at fertilization. Why? "the human embryo, from fertilization onward, is fully programmed to actively develop himself or herself to the next mature stage along the path of human development". [1] How do we know a woman is at the stage of fertilization? Doctors have test (Urine or Blood) to indicate presence of hCG to confirm a woman is pregnant. [2] I want to make clear as well that my contention is that the human embryo is not merely human tissue or human cells, human DNA, etc. .. , rather: "It is important to note that embryological evidence shows that the human embryo is a whole, although obviously immature, human being; it is not a mere part. This is a crucial point: human tissues or human cells, whether body cells or gametes, are indeed human"that is, genetically human"but are not whole human organisms. Neither of these has the active disposition to develop itself to the mature stage of a human being. By contrast, the human embryo, from fertilization onward, is fully programmed to actively develop himself or herself to the next mature stage along the path of human development. " [1] You have to be honest and ask your selves, at what point does a human life deserve protections? I think it is clear from Con's position. I think it is completely unclear from Pro"s arguments if human life deserves protections during pregnancy or even after birth. Pro gives us criteria 2) If X has none of the characteristics [1-5] it is certainly not a person. [1-5] refers to the following characteristics. .. .1) Consciousness, 2) Reasoning, 3) Self-motivated activity ,4) The capacity to communicate, 5) The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness If we use Pro's criteria to terminate living human organisms, there will be no restrictions in abortions, there will be living human organisms outside the womb that can be terminated. Let us look at Virginia's Abortion Law again: "The state of Virginia restrict second-trimester abortions to licensed hospitals, with third-trimester abortions legal only to save the life or medical well-being of the mother. Virginia law also requires women seeking abortions to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound of their fetus prior to the procedure. "[3] First-trimester = unrestricted, second-trimester = only licensed hospitals can do the abortion, and finally third-trimester NOT legal but can be done to save life or medical well-being of the mother. At the third-trimester, Virginia State says - now we think abortions at this juncture shouldn't be legal anymore for some reason. What is that reason? What is that criteria of such a significant event of terminating a human organism or not terminating a human organism? What is the significant difference as to now (the third-trimester) we should protect the unborn child. What significant difference between the third-trimester and the day before the third-trimester? I believe with my (Con's) warrants, we can have an exact point with no doubts when a human organism should be protected and not terminated. Pro says "I am open to the idea that maybe abortion should be more restricted in the later stages, but being open to that possibility is not the same as just assuming it, I would need to see arguments in support such a thing that can withstand critical scrutiny. "; therefore, I submit that Pro doesn't have a clear point when a human organism should be protected. I'm not sure why Pro uses "restricted" in the claim if you don't really mean restricted? Vote for Con to protect of the little human organism trying to make it into the world. I know the appearance isn't pretty during the embryotic period but it still a whole human trying to make it to the next stage in maturity. Thanks for the debate, X15 sources [1] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] . http://www.early-pregnancy-tests.com...... [3] . http://statelaws.findlaw.com......