The abortion of fetuses which do not endanger the mother should be outlawed

I aim to initially clarify the points of disputation before proceeding, so I will be as brief as I can manage. I will straight away state that I intend to invoke political ideology as a contextual background and as instructive motive behind the main variants of opinion within the abortion debate. For this round, I will directly quote Pro's arguments and respond. Finally, please note that I am from South Africa, where abortion is one hundred percent legal. I intend to argue in the American context, so please feel free to correct me if I have misinterpreted anything as a result. Also please note some spelling may differ from US standards. "The Pros position is that the abortions of fetuses, which do not endanger the mother, are immoral" Firstly to assert that abortions should only be performed for maternal safety, so as to leave a viable vessel for possible future progeny, is to admit that women are nothing more than chattel; to be viewed inexorably as life support systems for fetuses and potential runny noses and skinned knees. By this argument, women must either practice celibacy (the only 100% guaranteed form of contraception-well almost, if you count the Immaculate Conception) or else risk being the hostages of their reproductive biology, up until to the age of final fertility. ". .. if the con believes that abortion is a terrible act no matter the justification for it? " The con rejects the premise. Abortion is a nuanced argument but the blunt suggestions below, falsify Pros objective and obstinate stance. If not, they will help inform the debate going forward (a brief riposte by Pro, in part or whole, would be appreciated): -If birth control was practiced but failed -If the pregnancy is a product of rape -If the pregnancy is a product of an incestuous relationship -If the pregnancy is part of an arranged or child marriage -If a significant risk exists of passing on a genetically transferable disease -If pregnancy is a result of mis- or under- education -If the women was not in a culpable state of mind at the time of conception (this includes acute and chronic psychological states of mind affected by neurophysiology or external factors) " . .. and should be outlawed by proper legislation. .. " With regard to the legislative aspect, I would like to know by what authority Pro, or anyone else would claim the right to force child birth? In Roe v. Wade the constitutional right to privacy was weighed with the states interest in the fetus and it was found that severely limiting a women's agency over her reproductive biology, did not pass constitutional muster. I am intent to understand why the Pro believes: 1. Conservative, pro-life opinion is superior to a majority vote of a supreme court 2. Conservative, pro-life morality (usually of the religious stripe) should replace the overarching law (the constitution) of the explicitly secular, United States? "Where does life begin? This is the question that must be answered by both sides of the argument regarding abortion. The pro believes that life begins at conception. This belief is based on the idea that there is a set of natural processes which eventually leads to a human being outside of the womb" Let's for the sake of argument, tentatively agree that life (at least in potential) occurs at conception. This, regrettably, does not help us in deciding at what point a fetus has rights equal to or superior to its fully fledged human incubator (the mother). Can a zygote open a bank account? Can an embryo vote? Can a fetus tell us if it prefers existence to non? Even if we were to agree on some point, we still have all our work ahead of us. I assume that Pro wishes to converge on the question because Pro anticipates this would demonstrate that, if life is said to exist then objectively, it cannot be taken away. However we have a difficulty: Pro is also pro death penalty (as are the majority of Conservatives ). This displays that Pros side subjectively believes there exist scenarios in which the ending of life, by human intervention, is sometimes a justifiable action. That leaves us with the problem: arguing as if we will reach incontrovertible, objective truth. I would like Pro to rethink, re-frame or clarify this question if he feels I have misunderstood it. "Abortion seeks to end these natural processes by destroying the fertilized egg and ipso facto destroying a potential human life. " If abortion is an ending of the natural process, by that definition, contraception is, if not the ending of natural processes then the manipulation there of. Would contraception not be considered, as it is in Catholicism, a violation of the natural order or if you prefer Monty Pythons: '. .. every sperm is sacred. .. ' . Does Pro intend to mean that the natural order should not be interfered with at all, for any reasons? Would this then extend to and cover all forms of human intervention that assists or ends life, e. g. should we take polio vaccines? Should we pull the life support plug on the brain dead, etc? "The second argument as to why abortion is a moral evil is that any argument proposing that a fetus is not a human can be applied to the worth of a human being outside of the womb. This is dangerous because it deters basic human worth which can lead to the murder of millions of people. " I feel that there are arguments, especially relating to autonomy and agency, which can be related to scenarios outside of the womb but I dismiss the imagined outcome of denigrating human life as being automatic or guaranteed. As a brief and blunt example of possible arguments, I will employ the poor go to, end of life, coma patient. They have no agency, nor autonomy. They require external forces to survive. If they do not survive without life support, the action of pulling the plug is not considered murder and is made often times for purely pragmatic reasons, such as financial pressure. I am afraid that, unless Pro can produce evidence that abortion is directly linked to "the murder of millions of people" this premise would be shaky, at best. Thank you for your consideration. With this, I end my opening impressions.