Abortion is a woman's right

Thanks to Andromeda_Z for her intriguing round! Alright, let's jump right into it. Pro Case:1. My opponent denies that a risk is assumed in pregnancy and that parents arent necessarily aware that a zygote will be created. Now, I admit that a zygote "will" be created, but that's just about semantics. I quote Chuz-Life from his debate with with xxx00:""I think" that an act of consensual intercourse between two adults is an "assumption of risk" on their part (for pregnancy) because sexual intercourse is without exception the greatest known leading cause for pregnancy for human beings. Every over the counter birth control we have comes with the warning that they are not 100% effective in preventing an unwanted pregnancy. This assumption of risk by both individuals implies a known consent for the pregnancy because the risks for pregnancy were known (or should have been known) and the parties chose to gamble with that as a possible consequence of their actions. " [. http://www.debate.org...]Not to use his quote as an argument from authority, but he sums it up pretty well. Yes, I admit, there are many courses of action to be taken in order to prevent an unwanted pregancy, but they are not fullproof. Just like my opponent admits, pregnancy can still results from attempting to negate the possible risks, but that does not make abortion permissible. Car Accident Analogy:My opponent's analogy compares driving a car to consensual sex, taking safety precautions in driving to taking precautions to not become pregnant, and finally she compares obtaining an abortion to obtaining a prosthetic limb. Okay, I agree with my opponent, in that, taking safety precautions in driving is essentially the same thing as taking precautions not to get pregnant. My objection stems from the second part of what she said. She said, "they ought to live with the lifelong complications of that missing limb (instead of obtaining a prosthetic limb) because they chose to drive a car. " I think that my opponent agrees that the person driving is responsible for their condition of being without a leg if they caused (assuming someone else didn't cause the accident) themselves to be in that condition. My problem with this argument is that it falsely compares the desire to have an abortion to the desire to want a prosthetic limb. As said before, abortion comes at the cost of another's life/future and is therefore, immoral. Wanting to obtain a prosthetic limb is nothing like this. The only way for my opponent's analogy to work is if she can justify killing someone else and severing their and using it as their own. This seems more akin to what my opponent is saying. Tell me, Pro. .. . since you support killing someone else to alleviate yourself of your condition (pregnancy), then do you also support killing someone else and taking their leg from them because you are required to get rid of your condition you put yourself in? Thusly, I propose a scenario to you. .. . If an adult female were to accidently knock a helpless infant into deep water, then should she be held legally obligated to save said infant even IF she has to use her body in a way she doesn't want to to do so. Case law would recognize this negligence as manslaughter [. http://sixthformlaw.info...]. The woman shouldn't be able to shoot the infant to alleviate herself of her obligation towards the infant for putting the infant in said position of vulnerability. Homeless Trespasser Analogy:Note to my opponent. .. . as I said before, pregnancy resulting from consensual sex isn't as simple as someone "wandering" onto your property. For my opponent's argument to apply to her position she must show how it would be okay for the owner of the house to drag the homeless person onto his/her property, kill the homeless person, and then claim self-defense. Because, this seems a bit closer to what weare discussing than simply "wandering" onto your property.2. Dropped. Clean extension. Con Case:FLO ArgumentMy opponent has thoroughly and utterly dropped that my claim that abortion denies one a FLO and by extension, drops that it is immoral, so I have essentially won this point. She simply points out that not aborting is "less immoral" than aborting, because not aborting also denies one a FLO. To address this I shall ask a question. What does it mean to be denied a FLO? Well Don Marquis sums it up pretty well. He says, "The claim that the primary wrong-making feature of a killing is the loss to the victim of the value of its future has obvious consequences for the ethics of abortion. The future of a standard foetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children. Since the reason that is sufficient to explain why it is wrong to kill human beings after the time of birth is a reason that also applies to foetuses, it follows that abortion is prima facie morally wrong. " [Don Marquis, Why Abortion is Immoral, The Journal of Philosophy, 86:4]As we can see, a meaningful future is not necessarily one that is literally meaningful it is simply "a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children. " Not aborting doesn't deny women a meaningful futre because it doesn't kill them, abortion does kill and deny one a future. My opponent is simply playing semantics with the term "meaningful future. " Moral justification My opponent's moral justification is not legitimate, as explained above. And, since it isn't legitimate and my reason that abortion is wrong means that it is not within a woman's right to abort. Thank you. In conclusion, I would like to thank my opponent for this wonderful debate, including her interesting arguments and rebuttals. I think that I have thoroughly covered both the Con and Pro cases and I will leave it to the voters to decide. Resolution Negated.