Abortion should be consensual

Supreme Court Ruling After reviewing the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe V Wade, we can conclude women have protection from the state by the 14th amendment to do with their body as they deem fit by right of privacy. You worded it very accurately. Ultimately the case was won because at best the state had a strong interest in the prospect of life, and a strong interest cannot simply override the rights of a human being. This case cannot be used in a common law argument since the circumstances are entirely different. A state has no rights, only laws, and the duty to protect our human rights, which is the context I have built my argument off of. Men have rights. Only the woman can decide what to do with her body, until her decisions begin to affect the rights of another human being, which is the reason we have a time limit on abortion with respect to the stage of pregnancy. My argument is for protection of men’s rights, not infringement on women’s rights by state, and therefore is unaffected by the ruling, and fully compatible. Though the ruling can’t be used for Con’s argument I respect that there are arguments within the case that could be repurposed, such as a woman’s right to privacy. Earlier I stated that “Mom and Dad undoubtedly share the child”. The term “undoubtedly”, undoubtedly seems inappropriate since under the current legal system one could infer that the governing powers in this country consider the fetus to belong to the woman alone. I have proposed an arguably progressive change in mentality that since the fetus has its own blood, and unique genetic make-up, and was created by both parents equally, both share the right to privacy regarding the outcome of the fetus’s future, but cannot constitutionally overrule the other’s belief that the fetus indeed has a human soul or something of equivalent significance, no matter the definition of the state. – 9th Amendment “Well, the partners can’t possibly weigh his willingness and need to keep the child, against her unwillingness to keep it, unless they ask each other. It is their responsibility as moral human beings to do this ahead of time, and as such should be legally mandated in some shape or form. After all, if the consequences of sex are not mutually understood, then how could it have ever been consensual in the first place?” Remember, we have a moral obligation to do this ahead of time whether abortion is legally the woman’s choice or a shared decision. I am simply shifting the choice vs life decision to an earlier date in time. The woman still has control of her body, and privacy. If a man asks her views and she refuses to answer, he can refuse to have sex or risk having sex with unknown consequences. The same could work the other way around. -14th ammendment is not violated Child Custody Laws I am arguing from a Pro-Choice view and accept the con’s reassurance that the fetus is not human, and not entitled to human rights or laws regarding humans, including children. My argument is for the protection of the human rights, both man and woman. I will continue to argue that the fetus is a unique entity, created and shared jointly by both the man and the woman, and as such is not part of the woman’s body. As stated above it is known in this day and age that the fetus has unique DNA, separate blood, and obviously a separate body. It is a dependent living being and can’t survive outside the mother’s womb because it is only adapted to the mother’s womb supplying its nutrients and oxygen required to grow, develop, and continue living, not because it is the mother’s body tissue. The two are connected, but different entities, and though a fetus relies on its mother, it is not part of its mother. I agree with the con that the fetus is not its own entity, but a unique one that is shared by both man and woman, with the woman unfortunately carrying the entire physical load by natural order. I would also like to add that DNA testing was not applicable until the 1980's, which provides a distinct possibility that the information our current laws and historic rulings are based off of may be outdated to some extent, or incomplete compared to modern perspective.