Abortion should be banned.

"You get to choose a lot of things in life. You don't get to choose another human being's death. " - Ben ShapiroYour profiles states you are agnostic and support Tottenhum Hotspur. Meaning you are a non-theist living outside the USA. I am to also and also agreed with Ben Shapiro until people like Sam Harris shown how bad his foundation is. This thought that he has is based on Religion. Yeah sure you can get the idea and remove it from Religion but then you wouldn't have added this quote about Ben Shapiro instead paraphrased it as your own words. Ben Shapiro makes the abortion very simple and misses out scenario's that can occur. Even though he agrees that pregnancy can happen due to unforeseen circumstances of the woman and he would still ban abortion. So basically a rape victim would have to carry the child. A baby is a human being. Human being: a man, Woman, Or child of the species Homo sapiens, Distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, Power of articulate speech, And upright stance. (Wikipedia)My definition provides a much better conditions for it be a human being. The genetic makeup is already decided. The sex of the baby is determined. The neural network begins to form. By the time four weeks has passed, The heart is already pumping blood around the body. The lungs are forming. The liver, The stomach, The kidneys. All of this happens while the baby is still within the mother's womb. You are saying the reason life stats at contraception is because of the genetic makeup right? If you go by that you can provide no case for why a person in a vegetative state is able to commit Euthanasia. Terri Schiavo comes to mind. She was in a vegetative state which means you lack even the bare minimum of awareness. If we go by what you said we would have to allow her to carry on her existence until she dies. Turns out she was in a vegetative state for 15 years. If the factor which makes a life is cells. You can't give an argument for Terri Schiavo's euthanasia while also remaining consistent. 1) A unborn baby is still a human beingEven at the first trimester of pregnancy, A baby is still a potential human life. One that (if not interfered with) will develop into a fully developed beautiful little lifeform that will soon open its eyes for the first time. You are not being consistent here. If you cared consistently about human life then you would consider masturbation mass murder. Even with women when they are menstruating if you are consistent you would not be able to defend them not fertilizing the egg because like you said is still a potential life. So basically if you applied this to women and men individually they would be murderers. Reason is during masturbation sperm is being lost which removes the potential life that could have been with the sperm. Same principle with women. If they are not fertilized then that potential life is lost and by your stance it would be considered murder or maybe you are not consistent with your views. Even though the baby is technically (at least scientifically) not alive within the first trimester, Abortion is still unacceptable. If you wanted a unborn baby do die without feeling pain it would need to happen before 20 weeks. This provides a point for me because if the unborn baby feels nothing then we are not actually making the procedure painful. Source: Do Fetuses Feel Pain? What the Science Says (LiveScience)Drawing the line of killing a baby who is not yet alive is no different from killing someone who's in a coma or surviving on medical equipment. This has got to be a joke. A potential life is not yet born or can function in society but an already functioning member was put into a coma is somehow the same? It is not. A baby which is not yet alive is a fetus or a clump of cells. Does that mean we have the right to kill him the same way we would kill a unborn child? Personally, I think not. It is not about what you personally feel instead what you propose is a ban. The best you have is your thoughts without justification that can be done with evidence or explanations that are consistent. Which means you have not provided a well thought through ban. 2) Choice is not the mother's call in abortion In this case, Including the potential citizens who will be a part of this world after 9 months. If I attempted to go over to my neighbours house and kill my neighbour with a knife, The government is obliged to stop me. This analogy links into the case of a mother killing her unborn baby. The government should and must step in to prevent murder as killing an innocent human being isn't our choice to make. I could have made a better point than this but I am not defending Pro life. If aborting a fetus is not the responsibility of the woman carrying it. Is it the responsibility of the state? This might be a false dichotomy but there are the only two choices for abortion. The government should not have this much power. It leaves to much to corruption and if the leader wills it he can do what he wants due to the amount of power you allowed President to use. There is virtually nothing that has 'forced' a mother to conceive a child if she has not been raped. We live in the 21st century, And assuming that we live in a modern and developing society, The access to information regarding safe sex and practicing it is widespread. Saying it is the 21st Century does not provide you point. You want abortion banned as an absolute. Since you are not consistent when the life of the mother is threatened it has ceased to become an absolute. A case can be made that an individual does not see relevant information about sex and did it for the fun of it without knowing the consequences. With this in mind you are saying lets say a 16 year old should live with the consequences of her mistakes even if she did not know what they were. There are examples of 16 year old women pregnant in a show called 16 and pregnant. Since you do not allow dumb people to make mistakes you allow women to be pregnant to up to 40 weeks. Go through childbirth then decide to set the child up for adoption or raise it. Raising it limits what the women can do with her life and giving up the child does lead to psychological effects. Bearing in mind this could have been avoided if we keep abortion. The woman cannot aspire to do well in career opportunities, Find the right person and not be left emotionally scarred while also being a good mother. Lets say the person was not able to make an informed decision when committing the act. You are basically saying they can't make mistakes and have to live with it for the majority of their life or give it up for adoption. The bottom line is, If you're stupid enough to get pregnant with your partner while you were none of these things then it's clearly your own fault. Your inconvenience and the burden of a baby does not justify that baby's death. This is where the state comes in. So basically there isn't path to redemption. Mistakes should be with you for the rest of your life. Stopping a better future you could've had only to raise a baby you did not even want. Would also like to know how you are going to make abortion illegal when knifes exist. 3) RapeHowever, Making an exception for a marginal amount of cases would set a dangerous precedent which would eventually be manipulated and soon exceptions for abortion will grow greater and greater in percentage. Eventually abortion as a whole would be undermined as the subject of rape in a lot of these cases can be very complex and convoluted. Your defence for abortion not be allowed to rape victims is that it sets a dangerous precedent. That is the slippery slope fallacy. You are saying a small amount of fetuses being aborted due to rape will lead to major consequences. Not saying why this is bad instead say it will lead to bad things. The moral argument is that the baby should not be punished for the offenses committed by his/her father. Morals are relative and I only need to show an outcome where it is more moral to abort the baby instead of bringing it into this world. What if the mother was in Chernobyl? What if the mother was in a battlefield? I gave you two scenarios were I think you would agree aborting the child is a good thing due to the chances of it being born with injuries. As times has changed we can provide more concrete views on where life starts. What you propose is us as a civilisation strip freedom in order for authoritarianism. Woman should be able to fix mistakes instead of allowing them to living with it for a large amount of their life. Your points for abortion banning for rape victims was a slippery slope fallacy and a women should not be able to fix her mistake instead keep the baby and would have to give up her life in order to raise child for a minimum of 15 years or adoption. 4) Life Threatening CasesSorry about that. I'll drop it. As pro I do not find my burden to prove its omnipresent effectiveness If you cannot enforce the law why are you advocating for it in the first place? It is basically a meaningless law that people can choose to follow. My opponent saying that we can't stop every abortion is about the equivalent of me saying that I know I'll break my leg on the pavement today because I can telepathically see into the future. This is absolutely absurd. To stop abortion we require surveillance of the individual to make sure she does not stab herself with a knife or jump down the stairs. What Pro is proposing is if he wants to actually stop abortion by enforcing it is some sort of surveillance or something to keep an eye on the women so that she does not abort the baby. Giving this power to the state allow them to do other things since with this law you have stripped away your private life and gave it into the hands of the state.