Late Term Abortion

Defense "She doesn't have to keep the baby, she can place it up for adoption." I never said she shouldn't have the choice of adoption or keeping the baby, my argument is that late term abortion should also be an option. "She chose to have sex know very well that she could have used controceptives to prevent pregnancy." Contraceptives don't always work. You can use birth control pills and condoms, and still get pregnant. "A woman who does this and then goes through the pregnancy for 22 weeks is obviously not going to be hurt by delivering the baby, but the baby will be hurt obviously so by keeping it illegal both the baby and the mother are happy." No, she will not be hurt by delivering the baby. But why should she be forced to? The fetus's property rights should not be placed above those of the mother, especially because it is using the mother's resources. "A woman's property rights are no match to rights to life." If we're going to involve the right to life, then it's reasonable to expect that the same rights are conferred to the mother. She has the right to do what she wishes with her life, and her body. Your sense of what is moral or right shouldn't have anything to do with it, because that's your life. Rebuttal 1. "We will not suck the brains out of a person who has killed ten people, so why should it be allowed to suck the brains out of a fetus who has done nothing wrong" You are basing this analogy on your morals. Regardless of how many people agree with them, it does not justify restricting the liberties of those who do not. 2. "better question to ask is 'Why should the mother be allowed to kill something that does not hurt her in a horrible fashion?'" Maybe it does hurt her in a horrible fashion. You can't quantify such subjective things as hurt and pain, she may be extremely upset because she's pregnant and her family refuses to accept her, or something. Unless you can reliably put yourself in her head and interpret her experiences exactly as she does, you are not qualified to make the statement that it does not hurt her, and you are also unable to make laws based on such statements. "The fetus is there because the mother let it get there and let it stay there for 22 weeks." I have already mentioned circumstances in which the mother would reasonably be unable to get an abortion earlier in the pregnancy, which you have not refuted. Late term abortions don't necessarily happen simply because the mother wants to have a late term abortion. "The fetus has done nothing worthy of being killed, and it has intrinsic value. Therefore, she should not be allowed to kill it but rather give it away." It does not have intrinsic value, there are very few things a baby can do, and none of them particularly useful. Fetuses can't do anything. If anything, it has intrinsic potential, and that potential may never be realized even if it were to live. You advocate restricting a woman's rights based on a possibility. 3. "The woman is a valuable member to society," Her first priority and responsibility is herself an her own well-being. She is an individual first, and a member of society second. "and therefore it is the states job to make sure that society fuctions perfectly." That doesn't follow from the earlier part of the statement. What is it about that woman being "a valuable member to society" that makes it the state's responsibility to ensure the perfect function of society? Also, you have not demonstrated that a perfectly-functioning society is possible, that it is the state's responsibility, or that it cannot involve any late term abortions. This is really just an assertion. "A innocent life and the life of a valuable member of society is a perfect basis for not legalizing partial-birth abortion." The fetus is not innocent; it is in someone else's body using their resources. If I were to break into your house and steal your food, you would understandably want me out. You would also be justified in using force to accomplish that. The same principle applies in abortions. The fetus also fails to fit the description of a valuable member of society, in that it contributes nothing. Rather, it is the woman who contributes to society. As she is the one contributing to society, it would make sense that her rights should be the ones protected by society.