Abortion

I have already weighed the rights of the woman's bodily autonomy and the fetus's right to life. Do not pretend as though I have completely disregarded the rights of the mother, because I certainly have not. I simply have decided that the woman's bodily dignity is secondary to the right to live that the fetus which she is responsible for possesses. No one is denying that pregnancy is an unpleasant ordeal for the mother. Her suffering is a necessary evil, seeing as how the alternative is far worse. Yes, in a sense the fetus is just "potential", just as my opponent is just potential. My opponent could die tomorrow, meaning that his/her continued existence is mere potential. Since my opponent's continued existence is mere potential, then perhaps we should not treat him/her as a living person, if we were to go by my opponent's logic. But his/her right to live is not questioned (as far as I know). My opponent has raised the possibility of a fetus growing up to be something horrible, such as the next Unabomber. However, the fetus should, upon growing up, be able to decide for itself what it desires to be. It's called having a chance. This also explains why we should allow a fetus to live even if it has a good chance of living a crappy life: we cannot know for a fact what its life quality will be; it at least deserves a chance at happiness. Yes, I have no right to take some random person to make them raise my standard of living. But if that person owes me such a thing, then I dang well can. (I've raised this point over and over again, and it's not worth raising again). Oh dear. My opponent has misinterpreted my theological argument. What I said was that the only two known options are God or Multiverse, and as of right now they have about equal evidential weight. If those are the only options, then until a better explanation is brought up we should assume that one of those options is true. You might protest by saying something like this: "Imagine you're a primitive. You don't know how a rainbow works so your ancient tribal traditions assume it was caused by the great pink pony prancing in the sky scattering magic dust. Are you telling me the tribesmen in question should assume this is true?" Actually, yes, as long as he/she knows of no better explanation. Now please, let's not turn this into a "let's bash theists" contests. It's God or the Multiverse; until a sufficient third option is provided God's a very valid option. The potential to suffer is irrelevant; under the circumstances (of being anaesthetized and then murdered) you're not going to suffer. That you are not going to suffer is the point. My opponent might then cry victory and say "Aha! If potential to suffer doesn't matter, why does potential to live?" But that's not quite true. If done right, you are NOT going to suffer from being murdered. But under your right to live being snuffed out, you still had a chance, unless the fetus in question is already brain-dead. My opponent then stated that computers lack the characteristics of life. Fair enough, though it proves my point that intelligence is not a defining factor in deciding whether or not you have a right to live. Bodily sanctity is right to one's own body. But surely it is just one right. For instance, an unconscious person can have his/her leg amputated by doctors to save his/her life. That's a clear violation of bodily sanctity, but we're all (probably) okay with it in this situation. And, like other rights, it can be violated under extreme circumstances. You might say "So why can't the right to life?" Well, the right to life has higher priority. My opponent then attempts to downgrade sex to any old random act. Let's be clear: it's an act which may result in the creation of a being endowed with human rights. Saying that DUI is just "harmless fun" does a favor to no one; neither does downplaying the potential implications of sex. Let's not make an emotional argument here, please. My opponent then states that one shouldn't have to take care of someone that they don't love. Fair enough; I shouldn't have to compensate whoever I put in a coma because I don't love that person. Oh, and by the way, many women who decide to go through with the pregnancy report a feeling of love for their child upon birth. This is due to a chemical called "oxytocin". Your brain also produces this chemical when you state your pet dog which you love in the eyes. Then, my opponent makes the rather ridiculous claim that pregnancy is not voluntary. Good point, man; when I was drunk and crashed my car into another car I'm the victim who didn't choose this. As for that last part, I've covered it before. Finally, I saw that my opponent made the "there will be an increase in infanticide" argument. Yes there will...in the short term. Logically, when women realise that pregnancy doesn't come with a get out of jail free card anymore, they'll likely be much more safe in their sexual practices and the number of unwanted pregnancies will go DOWN. For instance, look at the chart provided on this link. http://www.christianliferesources.com... In the years immediately after Row vs. Wade, the number of abortions in the US skyrocketed. It's possible that the rate of illegal abortions was merely replaced by legal abortions, but I doubt that's the case. This huge leap was not immediate, which is odd because most illegal abortions were performed by legitimate doctors and not "in alleyways with coathangars". http://www.abortionfacts.com... Most likely, in the mid to late 1970s and early 1980s girls realized "Hey wait a second, sex won't make me carry a baby for 9 months since I can just abort now! It's party time!" So if abortions increase due to the legalization of abortion which leads to riskier sex and thus more unwanted pregnancies, wouldn't it make logical sense to ban it? In the long term its illegalization helps. My opponent might cite Brazil, with its super high abortion rates, but that's bull, seeing as how 20% of Brazilian women are not in prison (that is, the local Government does a crappy job enforcing the law). Also, Americans are much richer and have better access to healthcare, so they can "afford" (though that's not really the deciding factor here) a pregnancy which she can then be relieved of through adoption. And even if I were to grant that my opponent is right here, it would still make about as much sense to legalize abortion as it would to say "Well, we can't stop rape, and it's too much trouble to imprison rapists, so let's just legalize rape". That is, it doesn't make any sense at all! My work here is done. One last request: seeing as how this is the last round and I will not be able to respond to further arguments from my opponent, I request that he/she only provide rebuttals and not new arguments. Thank you.