Abortion should be banned.

Now then, Onto my opening remarks. "You get to choose a lot of things in life. You don't get to choose another human being's death. " - Ben Shapiro Having read through my opponents argument, I see mostly what I'd expect to see coming from an ethical standpoint for the mother. However, It's occured to me that at no point during his speech does he distinguish whether the 'baby' that he's advocating a mother's right to abort is a human being or not. Whether this was accidental or apparently not relevant to the debate from his point of view, This is in fact the main dilemna of the abortion debate. A baby is a human being. When fertilization occurs, The genetic makeup is already decided. The sex of the baby is determined. The neural network begins to form. By the time four weeks has passed, The heart is already pumping blood around the body. The lungs are forming. The liver, The stomach, The kidneys. All of this happens while the baby is still within the mother's womb. Simply put, A baby is a human life. And if we draw the line that to some extent killing an innocent human being is acceptable, Then where does that line stop at? What is it that I'm getting at? I'll show you. Onto my case. 1) A unborn baby is still a human being Now there are many arguments on both sides as to what determines when a baby is actually considered 'alive'. Quite a few pro-lifers choose to say that a baby is alive anywhere in the time frame after 28 weeks of pregnancy. However, I shall choose to argue a different route. Even at the first trimester of pregnancy, A baby is still a potential human life. One that (if not interfered with) will develop into a fully developed beautiful little lifeform that will soon open its eyes for the first time. Even though the baby is technically (at least scientifically) not alive within the first trimester, Abortion is still unacceptable. Drawing the line of killing a baby who is not yet alive is no different from killing someone who's in a coma or surviving on medical equipment. A person's brain is not fuctionally active if he's in a coma. Does that mean we have the right to kill him the same way we would kill a unborn child? Personally, I think not. 2) Choice is not the mother's call in abortion In many governments across the world, (let's say in this example it's the United States) the government has an inherent right to protect its citizens from harm. In this case, Including the potential citizens who will be a part of this world after 9 months. If I attempted to go over to my neighbours house and kill my neighbour with a knife, The government is obliged to stop me. This analogy links into the case of a mother killing her unborn baby. The government should and must step in to prevent murder as killing an innocent human being isn't our choice to make. Now, My opponent has put forward a rather narrow, Vague and frankly cherry picked argument in the defence of the mother's 'choice'. (Pardon me for being rather critical at times, It does not imply that I'm trying to be disrespectful). I'll go by this line by line ;- "Still going by the first link you ban abortion which forces single mothers to have children" I'm going to answer this by addressing mothers who conceived their child not through rape. I shall address the issues of rape cases in my next argument below. There is virtually nothing that has 'forced' a mother to conceive a child if she has not been raped. We live in the 21st century, And assuming that we live in a modern and developing society, The access to information regarding safe sex and practicing it is widespread. If you were not planning to have children, It should not be that hard to learn where your nearest condom shop is to buy a pack for ten bucks. Carelessness and recklessness from the side of the parents is not reasonable grounds for killing an innocent human being. "and stop a woman's careers opportunities due to the banning of abortion" First of all, We need to look at the demographics of this. So I'm assuming by the fact that my opponent used the word 'opportunities' he was talking about younger women who get pregnant. According by the studies made by the Guttmacher Institute, 35% of all abortions in the US occured amongst women aged 20-24 and 8% happened from those aged 18-20. So its fair to assume in this case that these women get pregnant out of wedlock, While they're still finishing high school or a degree course and do not have a job. This seems like the line of argumentation my opponent would run down because we all know that many women who get pregnant while in a career or when they're living with a partner tend to get maternity benefits and are able to plan out parenthood better. The bottom line is, If you're stupid enough to get pregnant with your partner while you were none of these things then it's clearly your own fault. Your inconvenience and the burden of a baby does not justify that baby's death. This is where the state comes in. 3) Rape Now, Onto the case of rape. As my opponent stated, Pregnancy as a result of rape is extremely rare and make up only a small fraction of cases. Abortion from rape related pregnancy is an even lower figure and thus makes them a marginally low amount of overall abortion cases. Now don't get me wrong, I am in no way trying to discriminate or under-represent rape victims in this debate. Nor am I trying to take away from the seriousness of their situation. However, Making an exception for a marginal amount of cases would set a dangerous precedent which would eventually be manipulated and soon exceptions for abortion will grow greater and greater in percentage. Eventually abortion as a whole would be undermined as the subject of rape in a lot of these cases can be very complex and convoluted. In addition to that, The moral argument is that the baby should not be punished for the offenses commited by his/her father. Under due process in the court of law, We should be delivering harsh punishment on the rapist who committed the crime. The government's role is also then to assist the mother in recovering from this incident in a manner which does not have to result in the death of the baby. Needless to say, In some cases abortion is just as traumatic upon the mother as the rape itself is. The topic of PASD (Post-Abortion Stress Disorder) is a concept which is also being explored by researchers today. 4) Life Threatening Cases Now, I did make it clear at the start of the debate that I would be debating under the notion that the only exception will be given to life-threatening cases. However, I will still elaborate on this stance to some degree for the sake of my opponent. In short, I don't treat life-threatening cases the same way as all the other cases for abortion. Simply put (as a pro-lifer obviously) life threatening cases pose gravious and immediate danger for the mother's life as well as the unborn baby's life. Only in this worst case scenario should an abortion be considered solely to prevent both the mother and the child from losing their lives. This exception is different simply because it would not fall under the parameters of murdering the fetus because there is the very imminent possibility and threat that both the fetus and the mother can lose their lives. And of course, Obviously, My opponent would want me to say something like the "the baby's life is more important" since earlier in the debate he seemed to make the assumption that we are undermining the mother's will over the baby's will. That is simply not the case. Just to conclude, At the start of my opponent's debate he brought up the 'pragmatic' limitations of abortion in the real world. However, As pro I do not find my burden to prove its omnipresent effectiveness (which is impossible because virtually anything we do in passing laws will always have realistic limitations to some degree) but rather to prove the moral and national obligation to protecting the baby's life. My opponent saying that we can't stop every abortion is about the equivalent of me saying that I know I'll break my leg on the pavement today because I can telepathically see into the future. Therefore, I conclude my argument. And now leave it to my opponent to present his next case. Sources - . https://www. Guttmacher. Org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states . https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pubmed/8765248