Abortion practiced on a baby with a beating heart should be illegal

Speaking for the opposition, I have noticed many flaws with the pro's arguments. I will be addressing these flaws as I move on with my constructive points. Now, the argument brought forth today is that abortion practiced on a baby with a beating heart should be illegal. This falls under the topic of banning partial abortion. The pro argument clearly stated that, "babies are not considered alive and can't feel pain until they are 8 weeks old. Abortion before this point, I personally believe, is ok. Not necessarily right, but definitely ok." Now, this is all well and good and could make for a very interesting argument except for the fact that this is not what any of the pro's constructive points came down to. All of the points that they brought up were against ALL abortion. To quote they're comment, "The problem with youth today is that they have a severe lack of morality and, for the most part, an inability to accept responsibility for their own actions. By taking away the option of abortion, we force them to be responsible for what they have done." It is clear that they are not aware that by making partial abortion illegal, that is banning ONE type of abortion. Saying that women can't have abortions late in pregnancy does not mean that they will stop having abortions because it would still be legal to abort a child before that time period before partial birth abortion becomes the case. What this debate should be about is the difference between aborting a child of under 8 weeks (which you said was okay) and a child of over 8 weeks (which you are strongly opposing now). Now that I have brought attention to the abysmal case construction brought to us by the pro side, I will now move on to a constructive point in opposition's argument. This is that of choice. Everyone talks about having a choice whether to abort a child, give it up for adoption, or keep it. There is no doubt in any body's mind that this is 100% true, BUT who would CHOOSE to abort a baby of after 8 weeks rather than abort the baby before 8 weeks when it doesn't have a heartbeat? If anything, having a ban on partial birth abortion would be forcing the woman's decision to take a shorter amount of time which could mean that she decides to abort her child when really, she may have decided to keep it, had her decision not been pressured by time. Now, to be fair, I will address some of the pro's "points" even though they pertain to a completely different case which we are not debating today. They are talking about what is ethical and what is "right". Well, I must beg to ask, how is it OUR job to force our morals and our personal beliefs of what is right on a decision that should be kept in the family. There is already enough pressures on a woman who does not want to carry a child, we should not tell them that they don't have this option. Sure, there is always the argument, "What if the baby wanted to live?" but that also leads to the counter, "What if the mother didn't want the baby to live?" Now, at first glance, that question seems to say this mother in question is essentially murdering her child, but we cannot assume, that every mother who keeps their child and doesn't want it is going to try to give it a good home. Many women would in fact keep this child. How is it that we should make a law that says people who don't want to carry a baby have to? This could lead to abuse, or an extremely harmful situation for that child. Now, I can already predict that the whole debate is going to come down to the question, "Is abortion bad or good?" which is too bad because the argument introduced by the pro side is much more interesting, seeing as we don't get down to the tired "abortion is wrong," argument. For all the reasons I have brought forth today, and for the lack of understanding brought forth by the pro side today, I believe that partial abortion should be legal.