Abortion should be consensual

It appears I do not need to modify or clarify anything since Con has skipped rebuttal. I’ve shown both why and how we could make the decision to abort consensual, and fair. Con made a couple claims which I've addressed and determined to be non-applicable or complacent with my initial stance. I expected Con to argue that a fetus is part of its mother's body based on their stance. Though it’s probably not needed, I’ll further elaborate on the subject since I said I would when expecting rebuttal..http://www.advancedfertility.com...Surrogacy has been around a long time, but gestational surrogacy has only been possible since the 1980’s. You may not be familiar with the term, but the process is well known. A couple who cannot reproduce, have their sperm and eggs placed together in a lab. The lab then places the developing embryo into a separate surrogate mother who has consented to the arrangement. Although the embryo will turn into a fetus and be born a baby, it will have nothing in common with the surrogate mother. DNA, blood type, body, etc… are all separate and unique, according to the interaction of genes between the two biological parents, not the surrogate. From this we can determine with certainty that the baby never was part of the mother at any stage in pregnancy. The sight below provides an accurate description of how the process works..My argument stands.“I do not intend to belittle a woman’s right to do as she chooses with her body, but to show that it is not her body alone that is affected, on the basis that the creation inside of her is not only hers, and was created through voluntary process, with knowledge of the risks and potential consequences.”I’ve shown the creation is not only hers, was created through voluntary process, with knowledge of the risks of consequences. I’ve also shown that it is not only her body that is affected, and undisputedly asserted that the man’s views are of high enough significance to weigh in the decision to abort. .Moral Reasoning“Well, the partners can’t possibly weigh his willingness and need to keep the child, against her unwillingness to keep it, unless they ask each other. It is their responsibility as moral human beings to do this ahead of time, and as such should be legally mandated in some shape or form. After all, if the consequences of sex are not mutually understood, then how could it have ever been consensual in the first place?” . Legal reasoning“Remember, we have a moral obligation to do this ahead of time whether abortion is legally the woman’s choice or a shared decision. I am simply shifting the choice vs life decision to an earlier date in time. The woman still has control of her body, and privacy. If a man asks her views and she refuses to answer, he can refuse to have sex or risk having sex with unknown consequences. The same could work the other way around. -14th amendment is not violated” I'd like to stress that this earlier date in time, is the key to my arguement. Without it, my legal reasoning would not coincide with my moral reasoning and the legal arguement of the 9th ammendment would work against me because the man would be able to force the woman to risk bodily harm, which is unconstitutional and in my opinion, immoral. By making the decision before conception and conception related activities, I am making the decision a free one, since the man can't have his religion infringed upon without consent, and the woman can't risk her body without consent. Fortunately for my arguement, Con has not refuted this.