Abortion is bad and should be largely illegal

Thanks for proposing this topic. Much of my opponent's case does not rely on evidence, but on ideology. For this I am grateful. If we can both agree to make this debate one based in the philosophy behind abortion then I believe it will be a much more interesting and productive debate. Statistics and data regarding abortion are approaching cliche. Now I believe it ultimately comes down to a case of philosophy and ethics. I"d like to begin by dismissing some of my opponent"s claims before offering a small constructive argument. Rebuttal 1.My opponent incorrectly asserts that the "right to life" is distributed arbitrarily by those who support a liberal abortion policy. He begins by using emotionally charged phrases to engage the reader- "when the child is in the womb" for what must be scientifically acknowledged as the fetus. He continues to make a sort of straw man with his point regarding Lebron James. No advocate of abortion has claimed it is the physical size of the fetus that justifies abortion. The debate consists of at what point the fetus gains sentience and becomes human. He concludes his first point in what must be seen as a slippery slope fallacy. To claim that to advocate any policy that does not illegalize abortion in almost all circumstances will lead to the murder of the elderly and the mental disabled is absurd. Perhaps many of these previous arguments would be useful in a debate regarding infanticide (which can also be a legitimate topic), but it is not relevant to the discussion of abortion. I could even make the concession that once the fetus has the full potential to survive outside of the womb (which comes during the sixth month of pregnancy) that the mother must be forced to deliver the baby but also be allowed to hold no more responsibility for it. However, this leaves my opponent at a loss to explain what makes abortions during the first five months of pregnancy so "bad". These are the times when the mother must unarguably physically support the fetus, so why then would it not be solely in her power to make decisions regarding it? 2.My opponent takes the advocacy of the position of the woman"s right to choose as a simple reiteration of a liberal abortionist"s position. This is not the case. If the birth of a baby would result in the mother"s death, it is less debatable whether she should have the right to choose. If the birth of a baby would cause great physical suffering for the baby or if the mother cannot adequately provide for the baby, it is less debatable whether she should have the right to choose. Individuals who do not advocate the woman"s right of choice often make the false generalization that most abortions are recreational. This is the rare exception, not the instances of therapeutic or practical abortions. In any event that a woman chooses abortion, there is the common gain of avoiding suffering and financial crisis which is certainly something that one must consider before issuing a blanket statement that the vast majority of abortions are "bad". 3.This contention should bear the least impact of the three. The following article is available in its entirety at https://www.lifesitenews.com.... "Dr. Elizabeth Raymond from Gynuity Health Projects in New York City and Dr. David Grimes of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, published the study in the February 2012 issue of the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, examining estimated mortality rates associated with live births and induced abortions in the United States between 1998"2005. The data, taken from the Center for Disease Control and the Planned Parenthood-funded Guttmacher Institute, found 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births, versus 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions." Until my opponent presents more persuasive and empirical evidence, then his third point is easily dismissed. A Brief Case for Abortion Because my opponent"s resolution is against abortion except in the event of a birth causing mother and infant death, I do not need to present a case that advocates the most liberal positions in the abortion debate. I need only take a moderate approach that addresses the great variety of justifications that one may have for ethical abortion to disprove my opponent's primary assertion. I'd like to challenge my opponent to defend his absolute case against abortion against a line of reasoning similar to that that Mary Anne Warren presents in her argumentative paper "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion". My opponent may have stated that he does not believe abortion is justifiable, but his only real logical justifications are fallacious. He has presented an explicit slippery slope fallacy and a factually incorrect claim concerning the medical risks of abortion. However, he has not actually attempted to answer why abortion is intrinsically evil. If my opponent claims that the fetus is a human being in the fullest sense from the moment of conception then his burden of proof becomes weighty and troublesome. I will take a less controversial position for the interest of brevity and clarity and merely state that abortion is justifiable at least until the point at which the fetus could survive outside of the womb at approximately the sixth month of pregnancy, because until then the fetus is little more than an organism directly dependent upon the mother"s physical support. Because this sufficiently negates my opponent"s resolution and is a more neutral position, I will rest my case here until the next round.