Woman's Choice to "House" her Unborn.

A woman's body is her own. It is unethical to take away her rights to bodily autonomy (including reproductive organs), by using her body as the means to an end...whatever the motives might be. Therefore, forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term without her consent, is using her body (means) to produce a child (end). Human Activist, Tom Head said it best, "The most basic right we have is the right to live in our bodies. Our bodies are the most fundamental instruments we have to interact with the world. Governments can legislate or take away our homes, our food, our weapons, our books--but when governments begin to legislate or take away our bodies themselves, or to allow them to be taken away by others, they arrogate the power to control our very identities." Previously, in my argument, I provided supporting evidence by giving examples of the One Child Policy and Female Genital Mutilation. Other examples include male circumcision. Which now, is not strongly considered a medical necessity, but more as a cosmetic procedure. Benjamin Spock M.D states that, "approximately half of all male babies in this country are still circumcised. But doctors are questioning whether or not routine circumcision is necessary, given the pain the baby experiences, the risks involved in performing the procedure, and the questions being raised about whether circumcision actually prevents disease." Another example, is the governments use of rape as a means of terrorism. In some instances, soldiers have been instructed to rape and kill women as a tactic to force the enemy into surrendering. Amy Zalman, ph.D. claims that, "associating systematic rape during armed conflict with terrorism draws attention to the fact that it is not simply a by-product of war but a strategy of armed conflict, one that is not acceptable under the rules of war." Using rape as a means of terrorism has severe negative consequences on the women involved, their families, and the community. From physical/psychological trauma of the victims, to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, to the overall moral disintegration of a community and it's people. I believe I have provided enough evidence to support the claim that women should have rights to bodily autonomy (including reproductive organs). Proving that by not allowing women these rights through either force and/or control, it is not only unethical, but also destructive to society as a whole. We place different value on life. To reiterate this claim,...In a situation of life or death an expecting mother's life is saved over the life of her fetus. Unless of course the mother makes the choice to sacrafice her life for the life of her fetus. Society has come to deem that the value of the mother's life is valued over the life of the fetus. Her life is valued more because of what she can provide towards the common good of society. The expecting mother might have prior children who need to be cared for; her job might be of importance, she might be an honest taxpayer, she might be an investor, she might have a large family, and many good friends. Therefore society deems her life as more valued than the life of the fetus, which can not, and has not done any of the things mentioned above. I agree that a mother's rights then should be valued over the rights of her fetus. I do agree, at some point, the fetus is entitled to certain rights. But I am unsure at what extent the fetus' rights should outweigh the rights of the mother. Because that point (the point of "person hood") can not be defined, it leaves room for open interpretation by both sides. I don't have to give the definition of "person hood" in order for any person to understand that a human zombie (if there was such a thing) lacks the human faculties of a person i.e., moral reasoning, processing information, known self-existence, capability to communicate, and relate to others, etc. Con has supported the argument that a fetus is a human being, an argument I also support. But he has not provided adequate evidence to support the claim that a fetus is a "person". If "person hood" can be scientifically proved, abortion would surely be outlawed, for the fact that a fetus would then be entitled to the rights given to us by the Constitution. In regards to choice, the rights to privacy act allows families to live under their roofs without intrusion by the State, unless in some extreme instances. This right also allows women, therefore, to bring on a self-induced miscarriage in "private", by not eating healthy, excessive working out, heavy lifting, self-medicating with drugs and/or alcohol, smoking, inflicting constant pain and/or pressure to the womb, and of course the use of the well known coat hanger as an implement, etc. How does the doctor determine between a self-induced or natural miscarriage and a self-induced abortion? Who is the one to judge the mother's intentions? Who decides what mother deserves medical assistance and what mother should be refused? I also disagree with the criminalization of abortion, for what punishment should the women receive? And what punishment then would the mothers that abuse their bodies with drugs and alcohol receive? And what about the mothers that smoke? Or mother's that aren't eating healthy? All of these inflictions are done by the mother, with intention, and ultimately harm the fetus. Therefore because a woman should have rights to her body, and because a woman's rights is of more value than the rights of her fetus, I believe abortions to be necessary. Our society has apparently deemed this to be true because abortions are considered legal by the State. Either way, women are going to abort an unwanted fetus if they chose...whether it is illegal or legal. Abortion practices have been in existence long before the laws for and/or against them. Abortion practices will continue to take place in our society regardless of State's laws and/or regulations. Like I have proved, women do try to self-abort on their own...sometimes going to extreme measures to terminate a pregnancy. It is because of this very reason (that a woman would put her life and health in jeopardy), that it is the State's responsibility to provide medical attention to insure that once the process is started...it is finished in a clean, safe, professional environment, where the woman is treated as a patient and not a criminal. In my argument I have not taken an ethical stance on abortion. I urge the readers (whether Pro Life or Pro Choice) to look at the evidence I have provided, in support for women's rights, and make an unbiased choice to "house" the claims I have presented. This was merely a debate to bring 3 main claims to light. First, the claim for women's rights to their bodies. Second, the claim to the different values we place on life. Third, the claim that abortions are necessary.