Abortion should be legal in every case, even late-term

Let me begin by saying there are two controversial cases that were established until now that determine whether abortion should be accepted in certain cases or not. The first one is when it comes to the mother's health, while the second one is related to the complicated issue of rape-related pregnancy. The first argument was not countered by Con, so we can assume that he agrees that if the woman's life or long-term health is in danger due to childbearing, aborting the fetus is morally not wrong but even necessary. If so, then this actually signifies that there is an advantage in being the mother as she is not always FORCED to carry the child. The fetus, by this definition, has less importance than the mother. When it comes to the rape argument, I do not see how all these statistical numbers are anyhow relevant. Just look at this case: . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Sure, the mother did not have an abortion but she was pregnant following her rape when she was only 14 years old. This shows that while chances of becoming pregnant after a rape are slim, they still do exist. Also, CON stated well that the mother had no right to abort the fetus as the later was "invited" within her. In this case, there is no such thing as an invitation to rape or forced fertilization. The woman, or girl, will have to bear, in Con's scenario, the psychological pressure of carrying an unwanted fetus that will remind her for the close future the dramatic case that happened to her, i. e. the rape. Now, while abortion is certainly not a large factor to the decrease of the rate of population growth, it still is a factor. If there are 46 million fetuses aborted every year, it is, on average, 33 million less parents that will exponentially give birth to several children, etc. It is like saying that certain government programs are so small (i. e. , NASA, NPR), they do not require cuts from public spending in times of severe debt crises. Cruel comparison, maybe, but realistic. For the self-ownership debate, I do not back off. The mother might have certain matriarcal values, but values are not necessarily obligations: while it might be a value to respect proudly your nation, it is not a moral obligation. Now, Con says that if someone is invited within somebody else's property, that does not give the owner the right to murder that person. While this is true, the owner still has the right to kick the visitor, the invitee, off his or her property whenever he wishes to. My self-ownership case is not based on murdering, but rather evicting the fetus. Capitalism Magazine, an Objectivist newspaper, clearly summed up this position in this way, "A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. .. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i. e. there is no right to enslave. .. a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb. " Murray Rothbard, an anarcho-capitalist economist and political thinker, also advocated the evictionist point of view. He sees the fetus as a trespasser that is only allowed within the woman's body. (For a New Liberty, pg. 131-132). Con also pointed out that the environment in which the fetus is does not matter in its qualification as a human being. Well that's exactly the point I'm trying to make, isn't it? If the womb is no different from the woman's house as they both are the individual's property, why should the fetus receive preferential treatment because it is living within the woman? Property is property, I agree, and property rights should not change based on the nature of the physical property. Finally, I do not see the African-American disproportionate abortion rate as the problem there. It might be an argument against federal funding for abortion clinics and abortion institutions such as Planned Parenthood (in which case, I'm on Con's boat) but it has no particular interest in this debate. Having no more time, I have to end my argument there. But I would like Con to put the resources he could not include in his second round.