This house supports abortion

Before I get into my substantive I would like to directly reply to your closing statement. I only brought up the first part because it is a common problem pro life supporters have with pro abortion arguments trying to demonstrate that this side of the argument doesn't have sound knowledge on what stage during a pregnancy abortion becomes immoral if at all. I just wanted to ensure this debate focused more on ethics and arguments over specifics. I feel I worded my opening statement poorly and has caused some confusion. I didn't mean that individual cases have separate consequences/requirements only that the woman involved should be able at any time in the pregnancy to get an abortion with the advisory of a medical professional (I only include them here for circumstances where the woman's health might be at risk) with it still being a morally just thing to do. I hope that made some sense, cleared up any confusion, and reinforced my stance on the issue. The profound affect that abortion/not getting an abortion has on a woman's life. I first want to outline what this point is, which is that it is a look at some consequences if some women cannot get abortions. Now of course all these will not apply to all women and of course people who want children take on these things voluntarily but think about someone who doesn't want to take on these extra challenges or someone who cannot afford it. A child is a significant investment on behalf of the parents and therefore it is immoral to force women who do not want a child to take on that heavy burden. This could seriously impact the mother's standard of living which is significant because if someone feels they cannot financially support the child, themselves and potentially their significant other how is that moral by having the child knowing the standard of living is low. It's not just the outset costs either. Becoming a mother requires a lot of time off work so even if you have a steady job before the pregnancy and you take maternity leave or maybe longer (leaving your job for an amount of time when the child is born.) this can still affect you. There are many decisions that go into the hiring of a worker and experience is one of them. A woman took a year off work because of her child and then goes for a job against another candidate who haven't missed a year and therefore has more experience. The employers may look at the experience of the two and have it be a deciding factor in the hiring of the employee. This point is to illustrate that there is a lot of factors that a potential mother has to consider and if she is worried that this may stop her career progression at an important time in her working life surely she should be able to prioritise herself and her well being over interests over the child. Next there is the point about unsafe/unequipped parents. This points out that not all people should be parents, wither it be because of addictions, personality, lifestyle. If the potential parent feels they are not going to be a good parent for this child then why is it immoral to make sure they aren't the parent to this child. If someone offers you a microphone and you turn it down, is it immoral (for the perspective of the parents) to take that microphone away? Some pre-rebuttal in the form as a point is that also the potential parent may not be okay with giving their child away. Now the opposition is trying to claim alternatives as a mutually exclusive benefit that only works for their world however under our house these alternatives are still available. This is after all a choice. I am not advocating for all pregnancies to be aborted by order of the government. If the parents want to have the child and give it away for adoption that is fine, however if the mother thinks she will find it emotionally stressful and would rather an abortion she should be free to do just that. What did I hope to achieve with this point? I wanted to show that there are consequences that a woman must think about before this monumental decision and no person wants an abortion for no reason. A lot of thought goes into these decisions and no one is making these women choose to abort. Having a child isn't right for everyone and by taking this option to prioritise the potential parent over the child you can ruin lives of the parents and the the children. What makes humans different? What makes a human, a person? Now stick with me for this one because it is the most controversial part of this debate and involves philosophy. So as I mentioned in my introduction the argument I will be disputing is 'It is wrong to kill an innocent human being. A human foetus is an innocent human being. Therefore it is wrong to kill a human foetus.'. For this argument to work it relies on the principal that a foetus is a human. So lets look at that wording. What makes something human? Peter Singer argues 'To describe a being as 'human' is to use a term that straddles two distinct notions: membership of the species Homo sapiens, and being a person'. This would mean that for us to consider killing the foetus it would need to fulfill both categories. So now lets shift the question to what does it mean to be a person? What makes humans different from other animals. Peter Singer claims that it is 'a rational or self-conscious being' and no one could possibly argue that a foetus is either. Another way to define something is human is that they have the ability to see themselves in the future. To have dreams and ambitions is seen as something exclusively human and again it cannot be argued that a foetus posses this ability. This argument seeks to define what a human is and once we have a definition it can fuel further discussion over the ethics of abortions. If my definition and analysis stands then we can conclude that it is moral to have an abortion as the foetus' do not fulfill the requirements to be considered a human. Finally I'll touch on some pre-emptive rebuttal. The opposition wishes to use the fact that abortions cause emotional stress to mothers and doctors. I have two responses to this. First the doctors performing these abortions have chosen this as their profession and are therefore giving their consent to have this 'stress'. Secondly, the opposition claim that getting an abortion is bad for the mother because of emotional stress, again this is something she will consent to and provides no reason why abortion shouldn't be allowed. All this shows is the desires of the opposition to have a government that takes away the meaning of consent. If someone consents to something then the negatives that comes with it needs to be understood. Women who undertake an abortion have full consent (free from coercion, has all the information, in the right mindset) If all these categories are met consent needs to be respected which is why pro-choice is important. Pro choice allows women who wish to either keep the child or not to have consent and full autonomy in their actions. In conclusion, all the opposition wants to do is take away choice because they believe the foetus is a person. In my points today I have pointed out how it is detrimental to take away that crucial choice and how consent negates any detriments that my opposition may cite. I also outlined how because I am supporting choice the benefits my opponent is trying to claim are not mutually exclusive and finally I brought up important analysis about what makes a human, a person which doesn't apply to foetus' under Peter Singer's theory. I know my writing can be a little all over the place so I hope most of it made sense. I now invite my opponent to make his substantive and I hope he takes into account my rebuttal and my own substantive into his arguments.