Abortion should be illegal

Again, I shall respond to my opponent's arguments against my contentions before responding to her case.Rebuttal #1 - The zygote/embryo/fetus is a human lifeI presented Con with an argument stating that the unborn is a human life. Her failure to respond means that this may now be considered a dropped argument and an established point in the debate. My opponent also dropped quite a few other points:1. The debate within the scientific community over when life begins has been largely settled2. Declaring the the unborn is a human life but not a person is a form of prejudice and ageism3. No philosopher or ethicist is qualified to delineate between humans and sub-humans4. If it is not known if life is present the moral option is to not proceed with an action that could possibly destroy it5. The embryonic view of personhood may actually be considered an argument for my sideAlso, Con failed to respond to my challenge to her to present a modern and reliable source for her claim that the unborn does not meet the criteria of life that I presented in R2. Dropped point number four is especially damning when we consider Con's statement, "I do believe that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human life, at some unknown point[...]"Con's latest rebuttal of my first contention is, in fact, no rebuttal. The only statement of real substance within it is, "if you don't have a serious reason for an abortion I don't think you should have it" which can hary be thought of as damaging to my case.Rebuttal #2 & 3 - There is a moral obligation to preseve innocent human life & This moral obligation is of the highest orderMy opponent also dropped many arguments that I presented in my second and third rebuttals. These include:1. A moral quandary does not mean the failure of the system of ethics that I presented2. If women's quality of life is important than life itself is important, and the latter is to be valued above the former3. The moral conundrum presented by Con may also be leveled against her system of ethics4. The system of ethics Con presents (utilitarianism) affirms my argumentsI am unsure what Con's point is in her response to my critique of her driving scenario. If keeping one's relations safe from harm is a moral obligation of the highest order, then we may safely assume that the termination of one's unborn relations would be condemned by her own system of ethics.Rebuttal #4 - "My case"As I have already stated and as my opponent has failed to refute, the protection of innocent life is a moral obligation of the highest order.That being said, abortion is properly defined by Merriam-Webster as "a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus."[1] Abortion is, therefore, a procedure in which the death of the fetus is the intended end result, not the simply the removal of the fetus from the womb. Removing the fetus from the body of a woman whose pregnancy is adversely affecting her health and then working to save the lives of both may not be qualified as an abortion. This ethical alternative is just as effective as abortion in saving the lives of those suffering from pregnancy complications."Even if a teen could later put the baby up for adoption, the baby would have already been exposed to dangerous conditions and adoption systems aren't always joyful situations to be in."Whether or not the child would prefer to live in poor conditions or to have their life terminated is entirely their choice."This country prides itself on the freedom of choice, so why is the choice of women being taken away? Whether or not a woman decides to have an abortion, it is her decision and it will affect her life.Whatever circumstance a women is in, the government has no way of knowing. Even if abortion was made against the law unless subject to rape, incest, etc, how can the government enforce that rule? If a woman really wanted to get an abortion, she can easily lie to get it. Drugs like cocaine and heroine were made illegal too. Do people still find access to them? Of course. Making abortion illegal increases the number of women that seek unsafe abortions. Unsafe abortions occur when they are performed by individuals without adequate medical skills or in an unhygienic environment which result in about 68,000 maternal deaths per year."The claim that abortion rates do not vary with legalization is patently false. To paraphrase my personal blog, the legality of a behavior has much to do with its cultural acceptance, and its cultural acceptance has much to do with how much it is practiced. I find it hard to believe that a lifestyle choice as heavily stigmatized and as highly controversial as abortion does not become more prevalent with legal sanction.According to statistics from the Guttmacher Instiute and the BBC, both the United States and the United Kingdom saw a rise in the number of abortions from year to year following the legalization of the procedure.[2] This indicates that abortion slowly became more popular following its legalization.Also, I would like to point out that only (and it is a great shame that I am forced by pro-choice claims of thousands of deaths in illegal abortions to use the word only in such a context) thirty-nine women died as a result of injury during abortion in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade.[3]"Besides the government, man (used to generalize both genders) aren't to say what rights a woman has to her own body. Abortion is no easy task, it is very emotional and personal. Man should not be able to weigh in on a decision that personal, let alone the government."I would agree that the government has no right to tell a woman what to do with her own body. However, I also believe that a woman has no right to end the life of another person growing within her. We have already established that the preborn is a human life with its own DNA set, and therefore referring to is as part of the woman's body is a gross scientific error. Abortion is not supported by the right to bodily autonomy. Just the opposite.ConclusionMy opponent dropped a frightful number of points in the last round, many of which are strong enough to completely destroy her case independent of all the others. Combined, they utterly destroy my opponent's case.I would like to close by thanking my opponent for the debate and reminding her that no new arguments may be raised in the final round.Sources1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://bioethicstoday.wordpress.com...3. Ibid.