Abortion and the right to life

The conclusion throughout this debate is conclusive (abortion is immoral) yet, throughout their arguments my opponent makes inconclusive claims saying in some instances abortion can be correct. I ask them to explain their reasoning. Now I would like to make an observation about my opponents thinking on the right to life in the unborn. My opponent states "I believe that abortions are morally justified if the mother's life is in immediate danger and both mother and child cannot be saved". My opponent believes the right to life IS negotiable and not an absolute truth. By compromising in this regard they are acknowledging a woman's rights are more important than the unborn rights. Since, if the abortion is necessary to save the life of the woman you can kill the unborn thus, you place the woman above the unborn. Furthermore, they are undermining their own case as their burden is to prove the conclusion: "it is immoral to kill the unborn as that violates its right to life". This must hold true in all situations. Now for the defense of my attack on the syllogism: The main point of my analogy was to ask the question of whether a person ever has the right to use another person's body for their own good. I recognize it does not portray pregnancy perfectly the purpose was to provide a more tangible example. My point is one human has no right to use another human's body. I then go on to explain how the unborn develop into human beings out of niceness of the mother. The mother allows the unborn to use their body. From this my opponent has developed this hypothetical into a debate over whether the mother has a responsibility to the unborn in every situation. The basic question, for now, is: why should a woman "loan" out her body unwillingly for 9 months? (Why should the woman be a Good Samaritan? ) My opponent's answer to this question is "the unborn still has a right to life that is immoral to take away because the child exists due to a consensual act between two people". The implied assertion here is the act of sexual intercourse somehow creates a contract for pregnancy. In other words, a person has no right to non-procreative sex. I also would like to point out the sexism in my opponent's argument as they wish to punish the woman for their sexual behavior but, not punish the men. Now I shall begin my refutation of this defense. Why is sexual intercourse a contract for pregnancy? It is not. People have the right to have non-procreative sex. (1, 2) Furthermore, the legality of birth control, in most countries, inherently shows people have this right. Consenting to sex does not mean you are consenting to get pregnant as it is a right to have non-procreative sex. If a person consents to non-procreative sex (they use contraceptives) then they are not consenting to have the child develop within them. So now the child is nothing more than an unwanted guest. This becomes clearer when you see "More than half of all the women who have an abortion are pregnant because of failed contraception" (3). Most abortions are a result of contraception failing creating an unwanted human. Since there was no consent for the creation of the human, the human is akin to being the product of rape. Now, Mrs. Thomson's analogy fits perfectly, the mother has the right to "unplug" herself from the unborn simply because she never consented to having the unborn in the first place. Furthermore, a right to life requires an independent existence. Both my opponent and I agree, the unborn are not independent beings. The fetus depends solely upon the mother for everything. If it wishes to survive the mother must give it consent to survive therefore, the right to life is not inherent for the unborn simply because it has to be granted by the mother. The parasitic relationship, the unborn constitutes a parasite simply because it relies upon the mother to survive and disrupts normal bodily function (a parasite does not necessarily have to cause harm to its host, I will explain the relationship between unborn and mother below), between mother and unborn means the continued existence of the unborn requires the mother's consent. (4) It is not an inherent right if it must be given by a human being to a human. If the pregnancy is forced then you are violating a woman's rights and bodily integrity. Also, if you force the pregnancy to continue for moral reasons then you are creating an unwanted child. Unwanted children have a much higher chance of leading a dysfunctional life simply because they were not wanted. (5) Should you condemn a child to live a dysfunctional life because you do not allow a woman to get an abortion? (By the way, your link does not work). In response to my point about self-defense my opponent states "It is illegal to use excessive force to stop someone from harming you. Most pregnancies do not result in harm to the mother so killing the unborn child is excessive force. " But, pregnancies can cause harm. I do not have the space to list all possible complications and diseases resulting from pregnancy (this does not even include psychological diseases) but, here is a list (6). And here you have the psychological effects (7). So pregnancy does cause harm why is self-defense not a viable attack on the syllogism? My opponent's answer is "it is illegal to use excessive force". If someone is assaulting you, you are allowed to kill them. The fetus has caused harm to the mother (assault) the mother is allowed to kill them (abortion). Sources 1. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 (decision) 2. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972 (decision) 3. . http://pregnancy.adoption.com... 4. McDonagh, Eileen L. 1996. Breaking the Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent. Oxford University Press, New York, NY (book) 5. David, Henry P. et al. , eds. 1988. Born Unwanted: Developmental Effects of Denied Abortion. Springer Publishing Co. , New York. (book) 6. . http://www.thelizlibrary.org... 7. . http://womensneuroscience.stanford.edu...