Woman's Choice to "House" her Unborn.

I conceded that life begins at the moment of conception, stating that it is obviously clear. I did not concede, as you would like to suggest, that "person hood" begins at the moment of conception. In my argument I stated that let's say, life and "person hood" begin at the moment of conception. This was to be used as a hypothetical statement to explain the different value we have placed on life. For the point of "person hood" can not be determined by either side of the argument. Therefore my argument is not based on this claim, neither is it based on the ethics of abortion. But it seems in your rebuttal, that this is your sole argument. My argument consists of 3 major points: Women's rights to bodily autonomy (including reproductive organs); necessity for abortions (in instances of saving the mother and/or rape victims); and the different value we have placed on life ( human life valued over all other life). I believe that you have not addressed any of these 3 major points, and therefore not proved my argument to be invalid. You first begin by quoting the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. "No PERSON shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." I would like to refute this claim by pointing out that pre-natal "person hood" can not be determined and the Constitution makes no reference to unborn human life, therefore the use of the 14th Amendment does not support your claim. In his majority case, Justice Blackmun states, "The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words...But in nearly all these instances the use of the words is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates with any assurance that it has any possible pre-natal application." In regards to the Roe v. Wade case, Justice Blackmun agrees that, "the constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy. In a line of decisions, however,...the court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, does exist under the constitution." Therefore in regards to the Constitution, because there is no mention to prenatal rights but there is mention to certain rights to privacy, my support for the 14th Amendment rights to privacy is a stronger argument than the 14th Amendments rights to prenatal life. Second, in my defense for women's rights I state, "No person, persons, or even the law can prevent her from going to any extreme to terminate her unborn." You argue this point by stating, "This could be said of virtually any violent crime, is not in anyway unique to the abortion issue. Moreover, enforcement problems do not negate the moral imperative to outlaw law." You still haven't addressed the point that it is still a CHOICE that can be made. Also, in order for your statement to be true you would have to prove that the unborn is a "person" and that that person suffered under a "violent crime". For if "person hood" can not be determined neither can abortion be deemed a "violent crime". I stated that SOME women would lose their lives trying to self-abort, and many others would wind up being hospitalized. You stated that "this is a baseless assertion." In support of my statement I will provide evidence from a Gynecologist's personal account. Waldo L. Fielding, who worked at two of the largest municipal hospitals in New York, between 1948 to 1953. He referred to the Pre-Roe era as the "bad old days". In his experience he "saw and treated almost every complication of illegal abortion one could conjure, done by either the PATIENT HERSELF or by the ABORTIONIST." He also recalls some of the tools used by women to abort. He states, "Almost any implement you can imagine had been and was used to start an abortion, darning needles, crochet hooks, cut-glass salt shakers, soda bottles, sometimes intact, sometimes with the top broken off." I have provided evidence that supports the claim of women who self-abort, and also proved that abortions took place illegally by doctors "BACK ALLEY" abortions, if that is what you want to refer to them as. Either way, my argument still stands. In your rebuttal, you have come to agree with me that many other women face hospitalization. By stating that "Prior to Roe 90% of illegal abortions were done by physicians, with the remainder being done by nurses or midwives"...all "BACK ALLEY". But in this statement you did not mention anything in regards to the percentage of women who tried to self-abort. Or the fact that women who usually started to self-abort seek medical attention because of the resulting damage they had inflicted on their bodies. Abortions performed in early stages of pregnancy are fairly safe, uncomplicated, fast procedures. I have not anywhere in my argument addressed late term abortions, that is another debate all in itself. Yes, the graphic story I provided is a fictional story and based on an appeal to emotion. Although this story is fictional, it is still based on similar factual stories, and still supports my argument for the necessity of abortions, especially when the mother's life is at risk (even if self-induced). Fielding makes this point. "What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally the full rights of first class citizens, and freeing their doctors to treat them as such." The story you provided, on the other hand, is also an appeal to emotion, and refers to late term abortions which is irrelevant to this debate. In another one of the statistics you supplied as evidence, you attempted to prove that after the Roe v. Wade case death rates increased, but you did not include in the evidence how many of these deaths were related to late term abortions. Therefore both these points are irrelevant to the argument. The state should be held responsible for the mothers health, and I do disagree with any unnecessary medical procedure that would ultimately put the mothers health and/or life at risk. Justice Blackmun states, "With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now established medical fact, referred to above, that until the end of the first trimester morality in abortion is less than morality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health." My argument: 1. Women's right to bodily autonomy (including reproductive organs) 2. Necessity for abortions 3. Different value we have placed on life Your response: In regards to rape and/or molestation pregnancies, you provide evidence that "Hard cases such as these account for less than 3% of all total abortions.[12] At best, PRO might make a case for certain exceptions to abortion laws." You also agree with me that the necessity for abortion in these cases might be a valid point. So, therefore you agree that "certain exceptions" can and/or should be made. If you agree with the above claim, you argument holds no ground. For if some life can be sacrificed, then you have supported my claim for the different value we have placed on life. Also in your rebuttal you agree with a women's rights to bodily autonomy by stating, "I agree with PRO that each individual has a right to their own body." But you follow this statement by arguing, "To that end, it is unethical to violate the CHILD's right to self ownership." You still haven't provided evidence to support the claim that abortion is unethical. Like I have mentioned previously, because "person hood" can not be determined, arguing the ethical value of abortion is irrelevant to the claim. I believe, in your response, you have conceded to the 3 claims I have presented.