life of infant in womb, sometimes should take priority over mother's wishes for abortion

Contentions, Counter Arguments, Rebuttals "i already allowed for exceptions for the mother's health and rape. con arguing for it adds nothing to the debate." Well, I understand that you already mentioned that, but I still felt like giving my side on it. "poor woman. i assume he's arguing about later in the pregnancy since that was my focus." What I meant was financially poor woman, as in, not enough money or resources to support the child. " is it okay to kill a baby cause you're poor two seconds out of the womb, but not two seconds before that in the womb? " I did not mention that nor did I imply it by my arguments. Also, the baby, once out of the womb, then becomes an official child. When a mother of three children is pregnant with the fourth, she does not say, "I have 4 children." She says, "I have three and one on the way," or , "I have three and pregnant with my fourth." In addition, killing a child outside of the womb is murder, inside the womb is abortion. A child, once out of the womb, becomes a true human being. Before that, in the womb, it does not show enough qualities of a full human being to regard it as such, which is a reason why abortion is allowed. You continue with logical-fallacies that stretch the points I was making. : "i'm poor so i choose to kill my new born so it doesn't live in poverty. what is the difference? same goes for adoption problems. if it's okay to kill right in the womb, can't we just say 'we dont want this baby to have adoption issues so we will terminate the newborn?'" This can be explained by the points I made above. A child, once it enters the world, is then truly a child that is counted. How do we determine that? The census asks how many children you have, and does not include any child in the womb. The counter that counts the population of the regions changes per birth, not per conception or announced pregnancy. "the only distinctions i see that you could draw are the hindrance of the mother." As long as the mother has legal right over the child once it is born, it should have the choice of whether it can handle or wants that right. If a mother or parents cannot handle a child, why force them to have it simply to satisfy the people who don't believe in abortion. I'm sure the same anti-abortion people would be happy to send their children into the army, a place where their child could die. With regards to your 'assumption' point, a woman takes the risk of getting pregnant by having sex. So, are you implying that woman should not be having sex since they run the risk of getting pregnant. Of course there is a risk, but even people who could not support a child still want to have sex, and if she gets pregnant, we cannot get mad at her for wanting to have sex. If she knows that she can't support, then have an abortion then. Also, in case you didn't know, there are many mothers who feel too much shame to want to give their child up for adoption, so that is not always a viable options, for other reasons I stated previously. With regards to your analogy, I did not understand what it meant. What I understood from it was that an accident like a car-crash happened and the person became attached to you?! Then, a logical person would say, "Wait two months before you separate yourselves." I don't understand what point you were trying to make by that analogy. I will write my counter-rebuttals and finish my arguments in the final round. Thank you.