Restricted abortion should be legal

Just to keep time frames consistent " I"ll be taking about the pregnancy from Conception\Fertilization to Birth " roughly 266 days. My Definition: Innocent = not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences [1] Your Definition: "Restricted abortion should be legal = By this I mean abortion should be legal for a woman to choose in the embryonic period of pregnancy. " I"m Con therefore my claim: Restricted abortions should not be legal. My warrants are simple: 1. Abortion terminates an innocent human. Anytime an abortion happens, an innocent human life is terminated and that goes against our society"s common values of protecting innocent human life. Pro agrees with me only after the 56th day of pregnancy. Pro"s definition of human life as being human is not distinguishable between 56th day and 57th day. What test can a doctor preform to verify a baby is now human and we should protect the innocent human life? Pro gives us no test but just a rough estimation of say after 56th day a baby is now human. Pro is therefore unclear of the exact moment a human is really a human. 2. Human life begins at fertilization. I subscribe that human life begins at fertilization. Doctors have test (Urine or Blood) to indicate presence of hCG to confirm a woman is pregnant. [2] Pro constructs a baby is non-human during the embryotic period in which science has proven otherwise: "It is important to note that embryological evidence shows that the human embryo is a whole, although obviously immature, human being; it is not a mere part. This is a crucial point: human tissues or human cells, whether body cells or gametes, are indeed human"that is, genetically human"but are not whole human organisms. Neither of these has the active disposition to develop itself to the mature stage of a human being. By contrast, the human embryo, from fertilization onward, is fully programmed to actively develop himself or herself to the next mature stage along the path of human development. [3] My Impact: Pro and I agree we should not terminate an innocent human being in pregnancy. Pro"s only contention to this statement is during the embryotic period. Pro claims it is okay to terminate a human during their embryotic development. So you have to ask yourself why? Why does Pro flip flop after 56 days of pregnancy? Why not 55th or 58th day? Why doesn"t Pro stay the course through the entire pregnancy and contend abortion should be legal? There is some sort of event horizon that happens for a human to be a human. If we subscribe to Pro"s argument, we go against logical and scientific evidence that during the embryotic period the human embryo is fully programmed to actively develop and is indeed composed of human definable substance. If we can so easily construct our own criteria for viability of a human life (as Pro subscribes) " then humans are at the mercy of those that define the criteria for protection of life. For the best protection of innocent human life, we should indeed protect a human life when it begins at fertilization. REBUTTLE ------- Freedom not restricted unless justified: We both subscribe to this and my justification for otherwise is "human life begins at fertilization". Pro"s justification for otherwise is "after the embryotic period". The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is untenable: What do you say to this contention after a pregnant woman"s embryotic period? Are you selectively applying it in the case of pregnancy to deny abortion rights? I think we can throw this contention out unless you yourself don"t use it in a double standard. Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy): Why doesn"t the pregnant woman have "bodily rights" after the embryotic period? I think we can throw this contention out unless you are willing to see it through until the very end of pregnancy. No conflict of rights/interests in the embryonic period: I"ll reject that and submit: "Again, the human embryo, from fertilization forward, develops in a single direction by an internally directed process: the developmental trajectory of this entity is determined from within, not by extrinsic factors, and always toward the same mature state, from the earliest stage of embryonic development onward. This means that the embryo has the same nature"it is the same kind of entity, a whole human organism"from fertilization forward; there is only a difference in degree of maturation between any of the stages in the development of the living being. "[3] That indeed is a conflict of rights. Unjust burden argument: "she should be forced to continue even against her will for a period of around 9 months" Pro will force women against their will if pregnant after the embryotic period (56 days) " total of 210 days. Con will force women against their will if pregnant after fertilization " total of 266 days. 56 days is not unjust burden. A case for unequal moral equivalence: Again we can throw out this contention as Pro subscribes to saving babies after embryotic period in a pregnancy. If abortion is murder (reducto argument): I"m not here to debate what the law should state and penalty actions if restricted abortion is illegal. Personhood & rights: This contention is non-factor as we can apply that to humans outside the womb and find that we should terminate humans with such criteria. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://www.early-pregnancy-tests.com... [3] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...