Abortion Should Remain Legal

My opponent argues that women should have an indefinite right to receive an abortion, qualifying the validity of that right as stemming from the inhuman nature of the fetus. I disagree with my opponent's source of validity, as did the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. According to that case, though "the State cannot override [the woman's right to privacy], it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a 'compelling' point at various stages of the woman's approach to term." http://www.law.cornell.edu... The validity of the abortion right therefore stems from the right of an individual (the mother), who is certainly a fully conscious human being, to prevent harm to herself while the 'humanity' of the fetus is uncertain. In an age where prophylactics are common and readily available, and a simple pill can prevent pregnancy before the development of the fetus, it is monstrous to needlessly engage in a behavior that threatens even the potentiality of human life. The threat to the health of the mother can be eliminated before abortion would even become an option. Why is this wrong? As the court noted, there are two compelling interests held by the state: protecting a citizen and protecting a potential citizen. The potential citizen may, in fact, qualify as a citizen when a fetus, but it is impossible to determine; it falls along the thin gray line between human and inhuman. This does not mean that the indefinitely human being is not a human being. It means that it may or may not be so. The court erred on the side of the person who was clearly a citizen, with all the rights inherent thereto, only because there existed no better way to ensure the citizen's rights/well-being. It decided that, provided the two interests were in conflict, the interest of the definite human outweighed those of the indefinite one. However, that was assuming that a risk needed to be taken. A pregnant woman MUST choose whether or not to abort if the ONLY option is abortion. If there are other options besides abortion, that prevent development even earlier, to the point where the continuum can be pushed back further, that option should be taken. As time goes on, the indefiniteness of the developing child's humanity becomes less and less so; therefore, abortion has become less valid as the need to risk lesser indefiniteness diminishes. As such, arguments for abortions undertaken to prevent non life-threatening or physically disabling harm become less and less compelling. Someday, a method could be developed to safely and easily excise the child from the mother and continue the child's development outside of her womb. This would give the mother two options: preventative birth control and interruption of the birthing process within the mother to the benefit of both the mother and the potential life. At such a time, the need to risk what could be classified as the murder of the human being disappears as there is no longer any threat to the life of the definite human that justifies the risk. At this time, abortion should be outlawed, as the compelling interest of the mother's well being would no longer outweigh the compelling interest of the child's.