Regarding third-trimester abortions

"Right now you probably work a 9 to 5 job, bringing back a pay check so you can feed your family. Imagine if the government decided that you only need half of that to survive and so takes that pay check away from you and then spends it on food to feed people in Darfur. After all, half your pay check will still feed your kids. It might make your life miserable, but hey, what's more important? Your freedom, your standard of living? or sentient life?" Though I am currently a student in high school (rather than a working adult), I will use your analogy. This would, indeed, be an absurd national policy. Of course, the government should always attempt to protect sentience, however, in this example there is an alternative option. Money can be found elsewhere to feed people in Darfur. If the United States government truly wanted to assist in Darfur by helping to feed people, it is their responsibility to find money in a place that would cause less harm and subsequent misery (e.g. instead of taking half of the money made by a particular family, perhaps taking a small percentage of money as some type of tax to aid in resolving world hunger; and thus meaning that the extremely wealthy would pay a larger sum of money than those who would strike financial misery by having the government deduct such a large sum of monetary value). With such a system, no loss of the standard of living is foreseeable, and yet sentient life is maintained by feeding the hungry. I have therefore invalidated your analogy. "If we accept the idea that sentient life takes precedence over personal liberties, then heck, we couldn't even have fought the Civil War. IF we invaded the South, the war would have caused the loss of sentient life. Since sentient life is more important than the quality of life, we should have just let black people keep slaving away at the plantations, as long as their slave masters only beat them and not kill them. Because hey, sentient life takes precedence right?" War is always wrong, but sometimes, unfortunately, it is considered a last resort. Ideally, more conversing between the northern states and the southern states; more diplomatic negotiations between the union and the confederacy; and more approaching of the philosophical implications, such as slavery and the inherent rights of the states, should have been achieved. Only then, after all of the above was vigilantly attempted (and if they fail), and if at least one side remains ignorant to the other, might war be considered a final resort. But again, all "wars," ideally, should be solved without fighting or the loss of sentient life. Therefore, my main argument for this analogy of yours is that war is not ethical in the first place. However, of course if it comes to a last resort, it is a necessity to fight against the physical harm of others. If the government had not intervened, slavery might still have been a severe problem today, meaning an additional 150 years of the malevolent practice, resulting in the physical harm and killing of many more slaves. "Imagine if there exists a sentient parasite. For the sentient parasite to live, it has to feed off a female. Is it good national policy for force all females to serve as hosts to these sentient parasites?" A parasite, by definition, physically harms its host. If a sentient parasite is physically damaging another being, one should not force the being to serve as a host to it. As a note for your likely subsequent rebuttal, a third-trimester fetus can hardly be considered a parasite. Though it obviously takes in nutrients from the mother, it often does no physical harm to her. It would likely be considered a form of commensalism. And even if it did do physical harm to her is some circumstances, I stated in my opening argument that an exception to the illegalization of third-trimester abortions would include if the "life of the mother was at stake." As well, in reference to third-trimester abortions, the sentient life is physically and directly killed. In your analogy, the females, or for that matter anyone else, are not directly killing the parasites by choosing not to serve as their hosts. The parasites would merely die by default. I have therefore invalidated your analogy. Again, I ask that you answer these questions, leftover from my Round 2: First of all, are you arguing that the killing of a baby (i.e. after birth) is acceptable, given your arguments presented? Second of all, if you claim that the killing of a baby is unacceptable, at what point does it become unacceptable in the process of development? Logically, it seems as though it would be just as permissible to kill a baby as it would be to kill a third-trimester fetus (given the guidelines I set in Round 1). Both, invariably, possess sentience. However, I will let you answer my inquiries. The loss of sentient life is always most deplorable. Overall, the fundamental value of sentient life is the greatest asset there is in our society. In reference to your argument #1B, personal liberties need not be forfeited, as adoption is still a valid method of preventing the loss of sentient life. Adoption would also relieve potential parents of having their personal liberties sacrificed. Again, I advocate in this debate that third-trimester abortions (assuming development within normal parameters) be illegal in the United States, unless the life of the mother is at stake. Seeing as I have logically refuted each of MoonDragon613's arguments and analogies, I am thus winning this debate. A CON vote is thus in order at this point. I await your next rebuttal.