Is Abortion Only Acceptable Under Extreme Circumstances (For Example Severe Birth Defects)

Pro says I am putting words in his mouth, but I am not, so I will copy and paste his exact quotes and bold them. A Fetus's Right To Live Triumphs A Woman's Right To Be In Control Of Her Body Because It Is Partially Her Fault That She Is Pregnant. Being a woman's "fault" she is pregnant does not mean a fetus' rights trumps her rights, so this is an irrelevant point that does not make sense or justify the premise. Pro has not given us a good enough reason to explain why a fetus' rights should trump the mother's rights. Just because her actions resulted in pregnancy does not mean the fetus' rights are more important, or even that the fetus has certain rights at all. Con Argues That The Mothers Choice Is More Important Than The Fetus's Life Because The Fetus Can Live Independently. Yes, we must establish qualifiers for determining who has the right to life and when/why. For example animals do not have the right to life. "In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor" [A]. So animals don't have human rights, babies and toddlers don't have full human rights as rational adults, and people in different mental states don't have full rights including fetuses. Just because they are living humans doesn't mean they have the same rights as other humans. We get different rights at different stages in our human development. So Should People On Life Support Be Regarded As Sub-Human? No, Because They Are Still People.They Same Should Be True For A Fetus. Like animals, some people in certain states of development or brain capacity also do not have the right to life, including people on life support or in comas or who are brain damaged [B]. They are not treated as "sub human" but simply have their rights examined in a different context, because they lack the reason or capacity to function as normal people with typical human rights. Fetuses have the potential to become something but so long as they are not in that state, we do not judge things by their capacity to become but rather what they are. Con Says That Denying Abortion ( Even When The Child Is Put Up For Adoption) Is Forcing A Process That She Might Not Want On Her. It Shouldn't Matter What She Wants, She And The Father Signed Up To Be Biological Parents When They Had Unprotected Sex ( I Say This Biological Because They Don't Necessarily Have To Keep The Baby).Some people use contraception and still get pregnant. Either way just because someone's actions allowed something to happen does not mean they have to accept it. If someone smokes and gets lung cancer, they still try to get rid of the cancer even though they chose to smoke. Yes They Consequences Of Pregnancy Fall Only On Women Because That's How Human Anatomy Works, Making That Argument Makes No Sense. Two parents choose to have sex and one gets pregnant. Yes Pro is correct, it falls on the biology of a woman and therefore it is the woman's choice. This makes his point about the father, grandparents, etc. feelings taken into consideration irrelevant. Because pregnancy affects only the woman's body, it is her choice. She is the one who takes all of the risk in how it affects her body, it could even take her own life. The woman is the one whose body is being used and we do not have the right to control other people's bodies. [A] http://mises.org...[B] https://txlady706.wordpress.com...