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

1. My opponent once again suggested that the mother's right to liberty is being violated by allowing the child to continue to exist effectively by stating that the child is to be considered subhuman due to the fact that it has not achieved that which we, in our limited understanding, would call self-awareness. However, the mother's right to liberty has not truly been violated. If you recall, in my previous argument I compared sex to a release. ( I will also be tying this into my opponents argument on the ways one can become pregnant unintentionally.) the mother and father had sex, signing a hypothetical release, and we should not rob the child of his or her right to life simply because of that. If through the use of liberty one later comes to regret the consequences; then I hold that one should not remove the child's right to life on this basis. Now moving on the aforementioned argument. My opponent has brought up many cases of how one could become pregnant despite their attempts to prevent it. I will be addressing each one of them in turn. first, a broken condom or defective birth control pill. I would refer you back to my release analogy and point out that the parents have elected (with their liberty) to utilize an entirely fallible means at contraception. When you go zip lining, they make you sign a release. The cord likely won't break, but there's a chance it will. This absolves the establishment (in this case the child) of liability. as for the spontaneous reversal of a vasectomy, while this is technically possible, it is extremely rare (1) and I do not believe we should use a one in a million chance (possible hyperbole but probably not far off.) as grounds for the continued legality of abortion. He then states that people who are barren can become spontaneously fertile. I was incapable of finding any evidence that this is true. (I even stooped so low as to read the Wikipedia article) however, as it would be ad ignorantiam fallacy to state that it is untrue because of this. (or for my opponent to state that it is true because I can't find evidence to deny it) I will simply state that I cannot confirm nor deny the validity of that statement but it does sound like it would be rather rare as well. Next he brings up two people having sex prior to puberty. well, exactly how old are these kids? seven or eight? if they are any older 11-13 or around those age groups, for one I would argue they shouldn't be having sex in the first place. that seems like a terrible idea. However, if they must; I would argue that they should be using any form of contraception available then refer you back to my broken condom argument. Then he brings up the age old argument of Rape/incest. I am willing to recognize the validity of this. although, Rape/incest only accounts for 0.5% of abortions according to a survey given to abortion patients. (2) this number is small enough however, that for the sake of saving the rest of the babies I am willing to amend my position to include cases of rape and incest solely for the purpose of preventing the abortion of the other 99.5 percent of children. 2. and again we arrive at the impasse. whether the right to life is superior to the right to liberty, (which I would argue is not truly being violated.) I would however like to offer the contrast between the permanence of the two "violations" the mother will eventually give birth and move on with her life. if you abort the fetus however, that is absolutely 100% permanent and irreversible. 3. next, my opponent dismisses my point on the horrible pain the child would likely go through as irrelevant. I hardly think that it is. the question posed is are we willing to put a child through horrible pain in order to spare the mother nine months of discomfort caused by her own actions. 4. My opponent once again makes the argument that the child is not yet what we would consider sentient. The child has simply not had the opportunity to develop those faculties yet. So to kill him or her in order to spare the mother a few months of discomfort is not moral. The termination of a potentially sentient being should not be allowed on the basis that it is not sentient yet. Next, my opponent argues that the mother has seniority thus we should respect her comfort more than we respect the child;s right to life. Earlier in this round, my opponent called raising the child's right to life over the mother's right to liberty as circular logic. no matter what we say on this point, we will always arrive at the same point of holding both rights in equal regard. therefore I believe we should look at the permanence of the two violations. (see above.) furthermore, in regard to this point and my opponents next point "give me liberty or give me death" I don't recall the unborn children being given a vote. what about their liberty? their right to live as they please and go as the wish? my opponent ceded in the very first round that the fetus shall be considered a person and should thus be granted the inalienable rights. But if you put all of the people in favor of euthanizing the disabled, and all of the world's mutes into a room and said "all in favor say aye" and "all in favor say nay" you would create the illusion of being unanimous. when you have a silent minority you will always be able to create the illusion that society believes one thing. when my opponents states that the right to liberty is inherently superior to the right to life, he fails to factor that the only people who get to decide that are the people who aren't in danger of being killed. "two wolves and a lamb taking a vote on what to eat for dinner" as the say. I would like to take this last moment to thank my opponent for an invigorating debate. I thoroughly enjoyed it and I hope he did as well.