Newly revealed natural scientific laws govern the morality of abortion

All of Con's points fail. Why, because all of his points are invalid. As stated above in the first round:"This debate will test a newly revealed natural scientific law that partially governs the impact that abortion has on society. If this law is valid, then the generally accepted conclusions of the pro life movement will need revision or become invalid." To win the debate Con would need to prove that the Law of Hindered Birth is not a Law and he would need to prove that a woman cannot under any circumstances plan to have a child and then have that child. Con's major error is that he fails to distinguish between law and theory. This law states a fact and does not make a moral distinction. This law begins and ends within the quotation marks "A Forced Birth Precludes a Willing Birth". There is nothing to debate here. If a woman cannot become pregnant while she is already pregnant then she cannot in the same time period have another birth. There is no argument possible. Con has wasted his space with off topic and invalid arguments. Con has made impassioned pleas and typical pro life arguments along every path that deals with abortion. He has not made one single valid argument to challenge the "Law of Hindered Birth" or to prove that it does not "partially govern" the impact that abortion has on society. As a result one is left with what he has proved. He has proved my point that there are new arguments that impact the abortion debate. He has made those arguments himself. Some of his arguments are invalid, and off subject, proving my claims. His invalid arguments are: 1)"Her situation is not likely to change" which has no impact, because the situation of some women will change. 2)"The unborn are humans from fertilization" has no impact on the debate. It does not matter if they are in fact the same as adults because any impact on the "unborn" falls equally on the wanted and unwanted unborn. Saving the unwanted destroys the possibility of the "wanted". I have proved the unwanted unborn has a 21 percent chance of life and the wanted unborn has a nearly 100 percent chance of life. If a person forces the birth of an unwanted fetus, then each 100 conceptions will yield 21 live children. If a person allows the abortion of the unwanted fetuses then after numerous tries as many as 100 births will occur. Theoretically these conceptions could all happen in the 9 months of the forced birth period. Pro lifers are therefore the cause of the loss of 79 wanted children when they stop access to abortion for 100 women. 3)"There is nothing to kill if the future child has not been conceived" This is an invalid argument. Over half of all children conceived are planned children. The future child exists in the egg and sperm of the couple planning a family. There is tangible genetic material that is in "the life cycle" before being conceived. The odds of birth for a planned child are nearly 100 percent and the odds of the unplanned about 21 percent. Stopping a future conception is much more deadly to life. 4)"The law only deals with what is possible, then it is not law at all" This is an invalid argument and does not belong in the debate. I gave a link to my definition of what is a "Law" and Con does not dispute that definition. All laws deal with what is possible. It is actual and tangible that forcing one birth denies another birth. The "Law" is "fact" and how "nature works". It cannot be denied. 5)"Quoting embryologist"--- there is no disagreement with what the embryologists have said. This is not a valid point in the argument. It does not disprove the law or make a wanted birth impossible. 6) "None of these wanted children are guaranteed to be born" is also off target. The law does not say there is a guarantee of life. It says that if one life is forced then another is impossible. 7)"We cannot be human at birth because we don't know if it will get SIDS or not" has nothing to do with the facts in the "Law" or the possibility of a woman giving birth to a wanted child. 8)"Liberty seems to be the only person in all of existence who would argue the unborn zygote/embryo/fetus" This has nothing to do with the law or the woman. 9)"The "forced" fetus is a real living human being", has nothing to do with the debate. It does not matter to the law if the forced fetus is a human and it does not impact the birth of a wanted child. 10)"The potential wanted child is not {a living human}, because they have not been brought into existence yet." This has no impact on the debate. The indisputable fact is that women have throughout the history of mankind had "wanted children". It is a fact that if a woman is not hindered with an unwanted fetus she can have a wanted fetus. 11)"You are advocating the death of all those supposed "wanted" embryos/fetuses, on top of the unwanted one, all because she wants to get a "wanted" one." This does not belong in the debate. It does not disprove the law and does not impact a woman's ability to have a wanted child. In addition all the fetuses, embryos, etc not forced into birth will also die. It is a moot point. 12)"I ask the reader: Which is more moral and reasonable: to kill a child because they are unwanted, or to want to protect children who are unwanted." This has nothing to do with the debate. More wanted children die than unwanted children when birth is forced. 13)"The pro-life movement believes that all life is valuable and worthy of protection. " This is not true and has nothing to do with the debate. 14)"Liberty keeps making the fallacy that the unborn are mere "human tissue." This has nothing to do with the debate and you have not offered proof that it is more than tissue. 15)"Again, more baseless claims. Tell me, who does not think my ideas are valid?" This has nothing to do with the debate. 16)"Human life begins at conception." This has nothing to do with the debate. 17)"The only life at stake is the unwanted one. The abstract "wanted" child is not alive" This is not part of the debate. The debate relates to the fact that the wanted child cannot be alive if the unwanted life is forced to birth. It is a fact that it could be alive except for the forced birth. Planned births occur every day. Con's only contribution to the debate is when he states: "I agree that a woman who is pregnant cannot become pregnant again." He does not like the wording of the law. I accept his changed wording as it relates to this debate. Even his words are proof of the Law of Hindered Birth. Con has made a normal pro life argument that is of no value to this debate. It does not matter if there is life at conception. In fact none of the usual arguments about abortion apply. This debate is not about morality, it is about the natural laws that govern abortion. Morality is simply a by product of the discussion. The theories following the law prove the pro life stance is immoral, not the law. The law is valid, a woman cannot have a wanted birth while she is pregnant with an unwanted fetus. That is all that the "Law" says. The fact is that all arguments about abortion are impacted in one sense or another by this law. The law says that forcing one life denies the possibility of another for 9 months. If the unwanted life is human, the wanted life is also human. This is true because a woman can conceive several times in the 9 month time span. Saving the unwanted life causes the wanted life to not exist. It is indisputable that the egg and sperm of the wanted child are simply a wish away from conception. And nature has proved that wanted children are strived for. I have proved that the wanted child is more likely to be born than the unwanted child. Both the unwanted child where conception has taken place and the wanted child have the same DNA available for human life. The only difference is the location of the genetic materials and the fact that the unwanted life is less likely to live. The law is proved. Thank you Con, good debate.