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

My opponent concedes that reasonable limitations can be placed on the right to life. My opponent also concedes that a fetus is not self-aware. My implied argument, that those who are not self-aware have less of a right to life, is confronted with the study that self-awareness does not necessarily occur until 15-24 months after birth. I concede this fact. My opponent then supposits that if self-awareness is not a criteria for a right to life, does that not mean that people should not be punished for murdering 15-24 month old babies?The answer here is self-evident in my initial thesis statement; the abortion situation is a unique one in which one right must be violated for the sake of the other, no matter which policy one endorses. The moment that is not true, abortion becomes unacceptable. By that standard, a human under the age of 24 months who somehow threatens the liberty of the parents cannot be murdered because there are other choices available with can respect the baby's right to life. Indeed, society allows infants to be turned over to hospitals, no questions asked, by parents who are no longer interested in caring for them. In a hypothetical scenario where it was somehow impossible to hand the child over to someone else, then yes, I would assert that the parent's right to liberty would still supercede the child's right to life, and the child may be murdered as the lesser of two evils. However, I cannot envision any circumstance in which such a hypothetical could possibly be realized. I don't think that one exists.Regarding those with diminished capacity, again, their right to life does not necessarily stand in conflict with someone else's right to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness, and therefore there is no justification for exterminating them. If that changed - and here, it is much easier to imagine some kind of zombie apocalypse scenario where someone else's right to life would be immediately jeopardized by actively attempting to keep a diminished person alive - then yes, killing them becomes acceptable. Society's use of self-defense arguments in defense of murder establishes this kind of precedent quite clearly.My opponent asserts that "when you have sex, one should expect to reproduce". That argument strikes me as ludicrous on its face, as there are literally thousands of scenarios in which it would not hold up; if a condom broke, if a birth control pill were defective, if a vasectomy spontaneously reversed itself (which has happened), if someone who was previously barren suddenly became not barren, if two children were having sex prior to hitting puberty and suddenly became reproductively capable without realizing it, if one was having sex nonconsensually... those are just off the top of my head. My opponent then goes on into the devolved emotional argument that "we are not going to rob this child of its right to life because you made a mistake"... essentially, that boils down to the circular logic that the child's right to life is more important than the mother's right to liberty because the child has right to life. I am not disputing that the child has a right to life. What is being disputed is that the child's right is inherently superior to the mother's right to liberty.I am in agreement with my opponent that there is nothing more to say on the matter of the method of execution used on the child. Suffice to say that, with all state-sponsored murder, whether it be inflicted upon unborn infants, convicted death row inmates, or the chicken that provided my dinner this evening, humans have an ethical obligation to find the most humane, painless method possible. That we have yet to find a perfect method is irrelevant to the issue at hand. To summarize, I maintain that the mother's right to liberty is superior to the unborn child's right to life, for the following reasons:1) The child is subsentient and the mother is not: Therefore it is a lesser evil to inflict a comparatively quick procedure upon the child, whose understanding would be even less than that of a cow in a slaughterhouse, rather than inflict months of forced biological complications upon an unwilling mother.2) The mother has seniority: By definition, an unborn child has made no contribution and has not been alive as long as the mother. Society arguably owes the mother more consideration. 3) Freedom is what makes life worth living: Patrick Henry, one of the most famous American patriots, said it the most succinctly: "Give me liberty or give me death." We fight wars and sacrifice lives repeatedly to preserve liberty. We consistently make the decision, as a society, that liberty is the superior right in general. Our abortion policy is quite consistent with that. Mind you, none of this takes into account the simple, practical truths that we already have far too many wards of the state who have not found suitable adoptive parents, and the advance of automation is already creating an environment in which we have far too many people in relation to available work. Those would be compelling reasons for society to tip the balance in favor of abortion even if there were an inherent superiority in the right to life over liberty. However, there is not, nor should there be.