Abortion should be illegal

For this first rebuttal, I will be using some information from a previous debate of mine. 1) 'The zygote/embryo/fetus is a human life.' The debate on when life begins has been worldwide since before we even knew what it was. Many people have many different views on when this happens. What I'm saying is not that science has proved when human life begins, but it has proved some basic guidelines for an idea of it. For example: At Or Near Birth: Which is measured by fetal viability outside the mother's body. Meaning around a month or few weeks before the due date of the pregnancy. Neurological View: Which is measured by brainwave criteria. Meaning life begins when a distinct EEG pattern can be detected, about 24 to 27 weeks. There is a strong argument between scientists that the recognizable EEG patterns produced by a mature brain is a defining characteristic of humanity. Therefore, the moment that a developing fetus first exhibits a consistent EEG pattern is indicative of the beginning of human life. It is from this point and onward during development that the fetus is capable of the type of mental activity associated with humanity. Embryologic View: Which is when the embryo undergoes gastrulation, and twinning is no longer possible. Gastrulation commences at the beginning of the third week of pregnancy, when the zygote, now known as an embryo is implanted into the uterus of the mother. this occurs about 12 days into development. The philosophers who support this position argue that there is a difference between a human individual and a human person. A zygote is both human and numerically single and thus a human individual. However, because individuality is not certain until implantation is complete, and because individuality is a necessary condition of personhood, the zygote is not yet a human person. http://www.thesurvivaldoctor.com...... science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/.../Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf I agree with your statement that the unborn does meet the criteria of organization and growth as of conception, but the rest are met later on in the development. 2) 'There is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human life.' What defines innocent? Many people have different perspectives on this viewpoint. The overall flaw in this statement is that it is absolute. Above everything else we are obligated to preserve life no matter the circumstance. For example, you are driving on the road with the rest of your family in the passenger and backseats. A little girl runs out into the road. You can either hit the brakes and cause the vehicle to spin off the road, killing the people in the backseat but saving the little girl. Or you can hit the little girl and save the people in the vehicle. Which life do you take? In some circumstances this cannot be avoided and therefore your 'moral obligation to preserve innocent human life' is broken. 3) 'This moral obligation is of the highest order.' The highest order should be utilitarianism, which is maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. Take Hitler for example. At the time, was our goal to preserve his life? No, it was to kill him and end the suffering of the millions of people he was killing. My Case: My argument is quite simple really: consider the circumstances. I do not believe that you should just have an abortion because you made a mistake and don't want to take responsibility for it. I believe that in cases of abusive relationships, rape, incest, and life-threatening circumstances then an abortion should be an option. Abortion being illegal wouldn't give these women the freedom of choice, a choice to keep their lives from going down the drain.