Abortion should be illegal in the United States

Rebuttals My adversary is trying to compare deaths in pregnancy to the numbers of number abortions. First there are a few major flaws in this along with some other issues that come up(a) We have to admit the fetus is a life. So is the fetus a life or in fact a person? What characteristics do most people share in common. They feel pain, they have conscious behavior, they can think, feel, touch, and smell. The bulk of the scientific literature on the abortion finds that the brain connections needed to feel pain are not in place until at least 24 weeks, which is also the earliest possible time a fetus becomes viable outside the womb [1]. A fetus does not start exhibiting the traits most humans have until the end of a pregnancy. So we have to ask ourselves is it just a life or a human life. Why do we not blink when we kill animals or plants? They are all living things but we do not hesitate to end life. That is because we don't think these things are comparative to ourselves. My adversary is trying to play a numbers game but I really want to allow the point he is trying to make to sink in. There are nearly 1 thousand mothers who could die from this on a yearly basis. These are people anywhere from any age group. Imagine going to an emergency room and having a mother or a child beg to have her life saved. Then having to tell them that they are not allowed to have an abortion and must carry the child through even if it costs them there life. Now at this point abortion should be legal and it should remain on the table. Having to sentence a living breathing human to death in order to try and save a fetus is a cruel thing to do. I know if they tried to sentence my girlfriend to death because she had to try and deliver a fetus that could die, there would be some major issues. this is not even considering cases where the fetus and the mother both will die if the abortion does not happen. My adversary claims a fetus is a human life, but cited no evidence to support this. For his argument to be sound, he would have to show that we are committing murder by killing a fetus. He cited nothing to show this is murder, nor provided evidence to support this claim. He does keep mixing up a fetus with a baby though, in his entire argument the word fetus hardly ever came up. He assumes we are killing living breathing babies. We are ending something with he potential to become a baby, not the baby itself.Note : For his argument to have any credibility he would had to have shown how the fetus is a living person. This was never brought up so this argument is null(b) Banning abortions would not stop themIf women do not want the kid, they are not going to have the kid. They will either try to kill it themselves or have a back alley abortion where it could and probably would kill them. "Estimates of the annual number of illegal abortions in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million. Prior to Roe v. Wade, as many as 5,000 American women died annually as a direct result of unsafe abortions."[2](c) CostsThis is kind of crazy but studies show that 90 percent of women would still have an abortion even if it were banned if they really wanted it done[3]. Now take into consideration to actually process someone for life in the judicial system roughly costs around 600,000 to 1,000,000. I want to make a note about the life part. My adversary has to agree to a life sentence for an abortion, if he is trying to argue the fact that a fetus is a living person he must admit to the fact that having an abortion if it were illegal would result in life or prison or the death sentence because it is ending another human lifeIf it is around 600,000 per person that is caught having an illegal abortion and 90 percent of women would still have an abortion, just think about the numbers that would come up. It would add over 100 billion dollars in cost to our economy on a year to year basis. Ectopic Pregnancy, Rape, and Situations of severe discomfort. Whether or not it is fatal is irrelevant. It is bringing excruciating pain to the mother. At his point the self defense argument stands. If there is severe pain and enough to threaten the mother physically she is entitled to defend herself. The entire premise of this argument is that pain and death is enough reason to implement the self defense clause. Ectopic pregnancies are also just one type of fatal pregnancy with many more that occur. Imagine this as an illustration of the violation of autonomy, consider the following scenario which is loosely based on that of Judith Thompson’s Violinist hypothetical in “A Defense of Abortion.” "You go to a party, get really drunk, and pass out. The next morning, you wake up next to a 90 year old man with a fatal kidney disease. You remove the covers to find that you and the man are now connected by a bunch of wires and tubes. A doctor walks into the room and tells you that you got alcohol poisoning and your friends brought you to the hospital. While you were passed out, they decided to attach this man to you so that you can filter his blood for him. If you disconnect this man or pull out the tubes, he will die. The doctor then sends the two of you on your way. "If the point comes where a pregnancy can be fatal, harmful, or was forced we are giving the state the right to force that mother to unwillingly carry a child that could kill her or that she had no desire to have.My adversary brings up another scenario where a traveler could kill two to save one. His metaphor is flawed first and i want to quote it. " Let us illustrate this principle further: if a rescuer is venturing into a burning vehicle to try to save its injured occupants, and is only able to save one of the two occupants, is it justifiable for him to then take out his gun and shoot the occupant he was unable to save? Of course not! Intentionally killing those you were not able to save is never justified in healthcare. We have the technology and expertise to provide quality healthcare to a pregnant woman without intentionally killing her unborn baby, regardless of the severity of her disease. "This is such a flawed analogy. The metaphor should go like this (In cases terminal pregnancies)There are two people trapped in a car. You are only going to be able to get one out but both are fighting to live. As you are trying to pull one out the other grabs him and tries to pull himself out. If you keep this up both of them are going to die. Is it morally acceptable to kill one of them so both don't die, or to kill one of them so that you know for sure at least one will make it out alive?I think it is perfectly moral to do this. If you know both could die, or one is going to die regardless why would you let them both die. If you can kill one to stop them both from dying it is morally permissible even without involving nihlism. Even in the case of abortion in severe situations someone is going to die. Whom is dying should be left up to that family specifically. They should have the right to chose if the baby or mother is going to live or not, not the government. With a federal ban on abortion we are promising the government the right to chose in every situation like that. We are taking away the families choice in the matter and violating the mothers right to her body. We are taking away her ability to protect herself in the hopes of saving a fetus that may not even live. Conclussion(1) My adversary has proposed a fetus is a human life at all points during the pregnancy and has provided or cited no evidence to show this. He just calls a fetus a baby and leaves the argument at that. Every point that stems from this is null because it is his own opinion and he has provided no evidence to show this to be true(2) He tried to make a case that we have the capability to address some severe pregnancies but does not address the cases where the mother could actually die and we are left with a choice between the mother or the baby. His self defense argument also falls apart because anything that is inflicting severe pain on the body, we have the right to defend ourselves from itAbortion should remain legal in the united states for the sake of the mothers, their rights, and for the families that have to chose in severe situations .[1] http://blogs.law.harvard.edu...[2] http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org...[3]http://www3.nd.edu...