Abortion

I thank Con for instigating this debate.If I am able to prove to the audience that there is at least one justifiable circumstance other than rape, incest, and risking the lives of those involved (namely the mother and child) of which abortion should be permitted, I win this debate as that would refute my opponent's entire resolution and case.I wish Con good luck.====MY CASE====My case is very simple. I am here to prove that there is at least one situation in which abortion should be permitted excluding the circumstances already listed by my opponent. Consider the following hypothetical:You live in a ghetto area ravaged by crime, homelessness, and lack of education. There are murders daily, and it is *NOT* a safe place to raise a child. You yourself have no one to turn to and are homeless. You are alone in this world, and you know your child cannot be safe. You cannot afford proper nutritious food, and didn't know that you were a couple months into your pregnancy. You feel the baby weakly kicking, and you know you have been smoking and using drugs for the duration of the entire pregnancy thus far. The first few months are vital to your baby's growth. You know the baby cannot and will not be healthy. Regardless on whether it is healthy or not, the life it will live would be unlivable. Their quality of life would be poor, they would recieve a non-sheltered life, and they would be exposed to a plethora of crime. You have seen it yourself. The babies your fellow homeless acquantances have had, and they either ended up comitting crimes with many health issues, or ended up getting hurt and contuing the severe hardship faced by their dangerous everyday life.Don't you believe that a rational, living, mature mother should be able to decide that if their child would have health issues and would be in constant danger, they should be able to decide to spare them the hardship? The mother's opinion matters most in such a situation for many reasons, including the fact that the mother is a functional, rational, breathing, thinking human being who has already started her life. In 99% of cases she is capable of making logical decisions, can feel pain, and can provide the life's necessities without much help. (She can feed herself, clothe herself, walk herself, etc.). The baby hasn't started doing any of this yet. In extreme cases such as when the child's life would be endangered by a destructive environment, the mother, for these reasons, should have the right to judge whether or not the baby should live in the environment that they would live in. In fact, add to this scenario an abusive boyfriend who protects the mother from death. She has to accept her fate, and be submissive and stay with her boyfriend or she will face certain death. The child would then be put into a physically and emotionally abusive environment where they would suffer brutal, daily beatings. Let's say the mother has visited a doctor because of a few dollars she has worked up through odd jobs. The doctor says the fetus is not a living thing yet. It is still in the early stages. It has no heartbeat, no capacity to feel pain, and lacks a consciousness. The mother knows the child would face nothing but a terrible life, and wants to spare that potential child the emotional, psychological, and physical pain. Who are we to tell her what to do with her own body?Not letting her choose what to do with her own body before the zygote is actually a living thing is a major violation of human rights to the mother. So, basically, to summarize my case:I. The child may face hardship. This includes malnutrition, starvation, exposement to crime, and so on. If the mother's intuition tells her that it will be a misreable life to the child, then she should have a say on whether or not to bring the child into such an environment.II. Before the fetus gains ANY human-like quality, and lacks the simplest things, like recognizable body parts, a heartbeat, a capacity to feel pain, consciousness, and so forth, the mother has a right to her own body. If you are against a rational-thinking mother choosing what to do with her own body before the fetus is a living thing, then that is violating her rights. You may as well be against birth control, and condoms.If my opponent fails to confront ANY of my points, they lose this debate and I win. As their title is vague, we are simply debating on the morality of abortion. Since I have provided cases that are not listed by my opponent as exceptions, if they fail to negate my moral standpoints in such a situation, their resolution falls apart, and I will emerge from this debate victorious. I thank Con again for this debate.