Simply, Stating there may be Cases where the Mother is, Fairly, Entitled to End The Pregnancy.

I dont, know why, the Pro, puts a, comma every, two words, i think, it makes, his arguments, incomprehensible to, understand at, all. It only, makes my, job much, easier to, make him, look like, a crazy, person who, cant form, a single, coherent argument, without mentioning, his addiction, to cigarettes. The root causation of this question that the pro is pondering in the debacle of this debate is one that can be solved by looking at numerous philosophical definitions of universal summations regarding morality. The first of which I will address are the ones that are most typically used when arguing for and against the right to the termination of a gestational pregnancy of an individual. The Geomagnetic Argument (A) argues that because the human brain naturally conflicts with itself over the dual existence of morality and naturality in the observable world, and the Quantum Cosmological Differentiation (B) which summarizes how the supposed conflict between early neolithic polytheist religious beliefs combined with the eventual evolution to a monotheistic one at a time preceding the scientific advances of the Morphological age of humanity could potentially cause confliction in the argument that there is a clear and single path to the conclusion that there is a resolution to the creator-endeavor paradox (C), which I have mentioned before in arguments against the Pro which he dismisses as unholy blasphemy. These two theorems which have only been proven theoretically due to the difficulty in actually experimenting their proof without compromising the theorems by sacrificing its core principles, but they still apply to this debate because of the nature of how a female believes that they have the cosmological belief that they should terminate a universe pregnancy (universe pregnancy I will elaborate on shortly). The issue with the Universe Pregnancy theorem is that it conflicts directly with the Geomagnetic Argument clause regarding how magnetic forces can trigger the neurons within brain cells to behave sporadically depending on gravitational pull from the Moon. At the same time though the Universal Pregnancy theorem is based directly off of other principles of the Geomagnetic Argument because those clauses have also been proven to exist in other theorems such as the Hypnotic Orbit Paradox and the Planetary Illusion Theroem (D), both of which relate to how the behavior of large objects can control basic thought of living beings through magnetic pulsation interactions with those given off by the sun. So how can these two theorems both be true when both of them directly conflict and agree on different proven principles? Lets us look at the Universal Pregnancy theorem (E) which suggests that limits on populations must be ensured otherwise the overpopulation of certain environments could upset the magnetic forces in play on people's minds to cause a catastrophic breakdown of social order. This conflicts with the Geomagnetic Argument because it states that magnetic pulses can affect brain function of craniums that are of a large enough mass to give off their own very weak pulses, but at the same time it states that any object that can pulsate magnetic emulsions would hypothetically be immune to any outside influence since it has been shown that craniums of large enough size can defend itself from outside forces through sporadic and large emulsions, which is still not clear on why this happens. The paradox (F) though is usually used to defeat the Geomagnetic argument since the thing is is designed to prove has been shown time and time again to be defeated through forces not yet understood, but its principles and foundations are still applicable to these questions. The Universal Pregnancy theorem, whether it is caused by sporadic large emulsions of magnetic pulses from large craniums or from behavior of large planetary bodies with large magnetic forces, can thus be justified even though it conflicts with many principles that it was built off of. This then relates to the termination of gestational pregnancies because people buy into a logical fallacy which if anything gives no substantial reason to negate a Universal Pregnancy birth. As for the arguments against the termination of a Universal Pregnancy birth, this argument comes from The differentiation of cells in Extremophilic environments in regards to cells. The specific cells used in reproduction are believed to have ancestrated from an elder self-replicating cell meant for birth that is unlike budding or asexual reproduction in that it can still take in genetic material from its surroundings and pass that on into the offspring without requiring an additional parent to take part in reproduction. This has only been observed in extremophilic environments, or any environment where most life forms would perish quickly, and the only explanation that exists to explain why this takes place is the same one that has been disproven numerous times in any non-extremophilic environment, The Concept of Multisexual Reproduction. This argument argues that the environment naturally tries to increase the survivability of offspring by artificially enhancing its genetics to increase its fitness. This has been disproven though because all attempts to repeat the experiment has resulted in offspring being born extremely deformed and mutated. All of this is rather random but here is what I am trying to say, The Geomagnetic arguments supposedly impacts the thought process of people, even though there is evidence showing that doesnt happen at all. There is the Universal Pregnancy Argument which is what the Pro is trying to use to justify the resolution even though the argument is an illogical fallacy, and then there it the idea of Multi Sexual Reproduction used to argue for the Differentiation of Cells in Extremophilic Environments. The Differentiation of Cells argument though is applicable to why one should not terminate a universal pregnancy because the idea that it is arguable to terminate such a pregnancy is based on illogical fallacies. The theorems though used to defeat this fallacy is contradictory in nature but because all of these theorems have proven foundations, then they do carry some merit and could thus be used to justify why women should not terminate a pregnancy even though the theorems have their fair share of contradictions and missteps. As contradictory as they are, their roots are based on reality that has been observed naturally and proven artificially, thus they perfectly explain why a termination of a gestational pregnancy is not justified when it is based off of an illogical fallacy argument. (H) To summarize my arguments I condensed all of my points into letters to justify the argument for those who may be struggling to understand the point I am trying to make. If A, then B If B, then C If C, then not E If Not E, then Not D If Not D, then F If G, then not F Since G and Not D, F is in question If D then E If E and C, then H H is real, thus the argument is negated. I hope the Pro understands.