The abortion of fetuses which do not endanger the mother should be outlawed

“By this argument, women must either practice celibacy (the only 100% guaranteed form of contraception-well almost, if you count the Immaculate Conception) or else risk being the hostages of their reproductive biology, up until to the age of final fertility.”The pro argues that women have a right to their bodies. The pro also argues that individual men and women have the right to defend their body however they wish as long as it does not encroach on other individual’s civil liberties. What the pro believes is what is inside the pregnant woman is in fact a separate human being, and the termination of that separate human being is immoral. The situation is comparable to killing a human being outside of the womb. "With regard to the legislative aspect, I would like to know by what authority Pro, or anyone else would claim the right to force child birth?"The pro claims the right to force the child to live because the child is a separate individual from the mother. The pro would like to ask another question. Is it moral to end a person’s life while they are in a coma from which they might awake?“1. Conservative, pro-life opinion is superior to a majority vote of a supreme court2. Conservative, pro-life morality (usually of the religious stripe) should replace the overarching law (the constitution) of the explicitly secular, United States?”The pro in no ways wishes a government supporting a single church. The pro also believes that governmental religious toleration should be practiced throughout the land. The pro also argues that individual voters should use whatever beliefs they choose because it is their choice. No one should tell an individual what to think let alone what beliefs to vote on. The pro does not believe that because some beliefs are religious, they should all be discounted. Gallup polls show that only 29% of all US citizens believe that abortion should be made legal no matter what the circumstances (1). The Roe vs. Wade decision was a complete breach of state’s rights. The pro does not want to dive into the benefits of federalism, but the main point is that it allows for more direct representation of US citizen’s wishes. The nine unelected jurors took the decision of states on major issues away in a de facto tyrannical way. "Can a zygote open a bank account? Can an embryo vote? Can a fetus tell us if it prefers existence to non? Even if we were to agree on some point, we still have all our work ahead of us."Using this logic, what stop a mother who does not want to bear the responsibility of their already born child from murdering her child. The con’s logic is confirming the argument that any justification for abortion can be used against human beings outside of the womb. "I assume that Pro wishes to converge on the question because Pro anticipates this would demonstrate that, if life is said to exist then objectively, it cannot be taken away. However we have a difficulty: Pro is also pro death penalty (as are the majority of Conservatives ). This displays that Pros side subjectively believes there exist scenarios in which the ending of life, by human intervention, is sometimes a justifiable action. That leaves us with the problem: arguing as if we will reach incontrovertible, objective truth. I would like Pro to rethink, re-frame or clarify this question if he feels I have misunderstood it."The con uses faulty logic here and is also assuming what the pro believes with no evidence. The pro believes that the unnecessary loss of any human life is a moral evil and a terrible sadness. The pro believes that any execution should never be committed unless there is an existing threat from a guilty individual to another human. This argument derives from the inherent right to self-defense which precedes government. What the pro finds evil is the execution of the most innocent part of our society for no reason besides the burden they pose. It equates a human being to property. "Does Pro intend to mean that the natural order should not be interfered with at all, for any reasons? Would this then extend to and cover all forms of human intervention that assists or ends life, e.g. should we take polio vaccines? Should we pull the life support plug on the brain dead, etc?"These strawman arguments, which aim to deflect from the issue of abortion, are easily answered. Yes, the pro does not agree with contraception. As to the arguments of human intervention maintaining lives, the pro believes that all options should be exhausted for as long as possible to save the endangered life. The sad and heart-breaking act of ending a human life should only be performed when the human being can no longer return to life while not on life support. "As a brief and blunt example of possible arguments, I will employ the poor go to, end of life, coma patient. They have no agency, nor autonomy. They require external forces to survive. If they do not survive without life support, the action of pulling the plug is not considered murder and is made often times for purely pragmatic reasons, such as financial pressure."Continuing on the last point, a fetus has the potential for animation while a patient surviving solely because of life support has no potential of reanimation. The fundamental difference is the potential of animation. "I am afraid that, unless Pro can produce evidence that abortion is directly linked to "the murder of millions of people" this premise would be shaky, at best."The evidence is that the fetus is a seperate human being. If the human race does not plant the flag of human value at the conception of life, there is no defense against the murder of any individual. This leads to justifications of horrific ideas such as the holocaust or gulag camps. The life of the child inside of the mother starts at conception. If left to its natural processes, it will become a human being. The human race must protect the most innocent among us. Thank you(1) https://news.gallup.com...