Newly revealed natural scientific laws govern the morality of abortion

What came first, the human or the egg? Con has wasted most of his debate space avoiding the issues of the debate. This is the issue to be debated: "The first law: "If a woman is forced to carry to term one fetus, then she cannot normally become pregnant with another fetus in the same time period."Con's assertion that the "Law of Hindered Birth" is not a newly revealed law is without proof or citation. Natural laws are self evident. For example a ball thrown upward has always fallen to earth. The fact that gravity has always existed does not mean that Newton did not discover the law of gravity. The fact that a woman has never been able to become pregnant with a second child while already pregnant with another child does not mean that the "Law of Hindered Birth" does not exist. Con's first point fails. And as the following sources prove, the "Law Of Hindered Birth" is new and has never been widely debated. The proof is that it is a newly discovered law. http://www.religioustolerance.org... Likewise Con's second point fails in that the "Law of Hindered Birth" as presented makes it clear that forcing the birth of one child stops the potential of another child. Rather than saving life, it simply trades the life of a forced birth for the life of a wanted birth. The "Law of Hindered Birth" changes everything, prior to the law it was unclear that a life was being traded for a life. But the law makes it clear that by forcing the birth of an unwanted child a wanted child is lost. Even if Con's point that it is not a real life is taken as true, and it is not true, the fact is that the option of a real life being denied creation is still a fact. The future child that women say they want is denied life. If Con can prove that all women are lying when they say they want a child by their lover and not their rapist, he may have a point. But if he cannot prove that women are lying when they say they will have the child of their lover, then the proof is that women can and in fact do have children with the man of their choice. So by forcing birth and denying them the opportunity to become pregnant for 9 months with their lovers child, Con would be denying life for at least that long plus the time it takes to conceive. The average length of time to become pregnant for women TTC is 4 months. http://www.babymed.com... So if a woman is forced to give birth to an unwanted fetus then she would not likely be able to become pregnant with a mate of her choice for at least 13 months. And during that 13 months she would be forced to give birth to an unwanted fetus and the life of a child of her choice would be denied. Saving the unwanted fetus causes a loss of the wanted fetus. Con states that the woman could still give birth to a wanted fetus; but that is an exaggeration, and untrue. If the man of her choice dies, the mate becomes impotent or for hundreds of other reasons she cannot become pregnant, then Con is wrong. Con also ignores the status of the woman that is forced to give birth. She may become impoverished and unable to afford another child. She may not be able to gain the love of her wanted mate because of jealously. She may not be able to take care of other children. She may be forced to go on public assistance and thousands of other reasons that will cause her to fail to have a child of her choice. In any of these situations the life of a wanted child is lost. Con also is wrong about the future birth being just a chance. For example, all life is just a chance. There is nothing new in the formula here. If the woman aborts the unwanted fetus she will usually have an opportunity for another fetus. Women frequently abort then have multiple children. Con claims that it is life at conception. And if everyone agreed with him, I agree that there would then be a balance that would need to be made between the life of the potential child that is unwanted and the potential child that is wanted. As it stands an unwanted fetus should always be aborted. But the problem that Con must overcome is that not everyone agrees that life begins at conception. In fact it is generally accepted in the scientific community that life does not begin at conception. What is taught in all schools is that life is a cycle. In fact Con's quotation admits that life is a cycle. And some embryologist choose a time in the cycle that they claim is the beginning of life. But they cannot be serious, they are only choosing a point of reference. (What came first the human or the egg?) Others claim there is no point at which life can be said to "begin". It is a common stated belief of the pro life community that if we are not certain if something is in fact life, then we should take the least harmful path. When the "Law of Hindered Birth" is taken into account, then the least harmful path is to save the wanted fetus. The reason saving the wanted fetus is the least harmful path is because we know for certain that there will likely be a wanted birth and there is little chance that an unwanted conception will be born. Earlier we proved that only 21 percent of unwanted conceptions will be brought to term (we are aware that in other circumstances up to 50 percent of conceptions live). It is a fact however that a woman wanting to conceive will try over and over until she conceives. So the sensible thing to do is to save the wanted fetus and not let it be killed in the process of saving of the unwanted fetus. It is a fact that life is a cycle. http://content.karger.com... Life does not begin or end in one sense; and life is continuous from the first human until today in another sense. And a new genetic individual does not start at conception: "Modern genetics has revealed that fertilization is not the time at which a pre-embryo's genetic identity begins to influence development nor is it even the time at which a zygote's functional genetic identity is determined [5]. The genomes borne by the sperm and the egg are chemically inactivated both before and immediately after fertilization. This inactivation is accomplished by adding methyl groups (a common organic molecule) to cytosine, one of the basic components of DNA. When the DNA that codes for a gene is methylated, the gene is ‘silenced' and the cell cannot use the information contained in the gene. Most scientist agree there is no consensus as to when life begins. http://www.sinauer.com... and in fact there are four major points at which life could begin. It is of no minor importance that a woman that is pregnant with an unwanted child is at a disadvantage with regards to availability for mating with a male of her choice and that forced birth limits her ability to mate with that male. The male is also at a disadvantage if his mate is pregnant with the unwanted child of another man, in that it is possible that he will not be able to afford to support the woman and the child along with a child with his genetic material. Con makes multiple excuses including claiming that the woman would not benefit because she likely would not want to become pregnant again if she were allowed to abort. Of course if that is true, then she probably does not want to be pregnant with the unwanted child either. It is only a guess that if she is allowed to abort she will not want to become pregnant again. The fact is that women universally agree that a wanted birth is better than an unwanted birth. They agree a child with her mate is preferred to a child of rape. Most parents want their daughters to be able to choose their mate and not be raped and be forced to give birth. Most societies want their citizens to have planned births and not forced births by rape or accident. And most women throughout history have been able to find a mate and have children when they want All of Con's points fail.