Abortion should only be legal until a way is found to safely bring an embryo to term in a lab.

It is hard to imagine that our planet could have adequately sustained another 1.5 billion people in the last fifty years. Certainly the American economy would have collapsed long ago in those circumstances. But that's a conversation for a different debate. My opponent raises the objection that the right to liberty is not without limitation. The argument is compelling; however, if one can place limitations upon the right to liberty, then can one not also place similar limitations on the right to life? And is it necessarily so unfair to presume that one of those limitations be that, until an individual is fully formed and formally birthed, their right to life is inherently inferior to the liberty of the mother? To put that another way, certainly a fetus is alive, but is it necessarily self-aware? To paraphrase René Descartes, it does not think, therefore it is not. In advancing that argument, my opponent names other detrimental activities one must "pay the consequences for" while exercising their liberty. The detrimental effect of drugs, for example. The obvious difference is that in the case of pregnancy, one is talking about preventable future harm. No one tells a drug addict that they must remain on drugs for another nine months, regardless of what the drug is doing to them. Telling someone that they must remain pregnant is doing exactly that. Perhaps a more fitting example my opponent could have used is the concept of committing a crime and being condemned to a nine month jail sentence as a result. But considering what is being done to the woman's body, it seems pretty obvious that the "sentence" being imposed would qualify as cruel and unusual punishment in the legal system. It is simply too much to force someone to go through for the sake of another. I am in no way opposed to pleading, begging, incentivizing, or any other persuasion one might use to convince such selfless behavior, but it cannot be mandated. It's really that simple. Regarding the ability of the fetus to perhaps feel pain, I'd fully support giving it a lethal injection before the procedure starts, or any other safe method which might be available to ensure that there is little or no pain during the procedure. I do not subscribe to the idea that its ability to feel pain justifies it in a way that requires it be spared. (Note, I am using "it" as the pronoun here simply because gender is not established; I have no problem substituting "he" or "she" if my opponent feels I am deliberately attempting to dehumanize the fetus in any way in order to make such an argument easier. I am not.)Regarding the expense of transferring to an artificial womb, my opponent seems confused on the nuance of my argument; once it is possible to save the child's life after removal, then under no circumstances should it be legal to kill the child. I was using the expense example to highlight an excuse someone might give for condoning an abortion even after such a possibility exists, and affirming that such reasoning would not be acceptable. Finally, regarding the use of the Declaration of Independence as a de facto lease agreement... I think it might be safe to say that no one has ever put those words together in the history of humanity, so bonus points to both of us for that. ;) But my opponent cannot have it both ways. If the right to life is analogous to a lease agreement, then the right to liberty is the mother/landlord's termination clause, and we're right back where we started.