abortion for raped teenagers

I want to point out that this debate specifically is asking whether or not teenage girls who are the victims of rape should have access to abortions. You may ask why the Con side would point that out, but I am doing that for a reason. First, I will argue that abortion is morally wrong; then, I will proceed to explain why the circumstances surrounding the girl's age and the rape are irrelevant to the morality of abortion. Later, I will refute your initial points, but I wanted to present mine first. As soon as a sperm meets an egg, conception occurs, starting an irreversible journey through life. It is illogical to say that the fetus is not yet a baby due to its not being fully developed, as we change throughout our lives as well. For instance, a newborn is very different from an 11-year old, who is very different from a 18-year old, who is in turn very different from a 65-year old. Development occurs throughout our lives, not solely in the nine months of it that we spend in our mothers' wombs. How is it our right to determine how developed a person needs to be to qualify as a person? Some far-left activists are actually advocating the legalization of "post-birth abortion" in cases where an attempted abortion failed [1]. Is that acceptable? Any rational person would say no. However, that brings about the issue of when we are considered human. The answer is that there is no point in our development where we suddenly go from non-human to human. On the other hand, we are human from the point of conception. Finally, it also makes no sense to argue that the baby could not survive without its mother until 20 weeks, as it takes several years of life before one could truly survive on his or her own. Can we just pick an arbitrary age before which it is legal to kill someone? No. Then, why do we do that under the disguise of "freedom of choice"? Furthermore, babies show vital signs of life very quickly after conception. Eighteen days after conception, a heartbeat is detectable, and brainwaves can be detected at 6 weeks [2]. Also, according to Maureen Condic, a neurobiologist at the University of Utah, the nervous system begins to develop at 4 weeks and is complete by 8 weeks [3]. Therefore, the baby can feel the pain of an abortion occurring. If statistics do not convince you, just Google pictures of a baby in the womb and tell me that it is not human. Therefore, clearly, life does begin at conception, thus making abortion and murder one in the same. If we accept that abortion is murder and morally wrong, then, the other question to consider is whether those circumstances are changed by being a teenage girl who was raped. First of all, I want to point out that the age of the girl is irrelevant, as a teenager is fully capable of having a baby and raising it. Should she not want to raise the baby, adoption is always an option and a good solution to the abortion problem. Secondly, we have to consider the situation around rape. I am the first to say that rape is a terrible thing that must not be allowed. However, the crime of rape is not justified by the crime of murder, which is what the Pro side is arguing should be legal. Killing the baby that results from the rape does nothing to avenge the crime. Now, I do sympathize with the girl who did nothing of her own accord, but still got pregnant. I have a solution for this problem, though. If a girl or woman gets pregnant as a result of a rape, an additional charge should be added to the rapist's charges. He would then have to pay the medical bills associated with the pregnancy and serve a longer term in jail for making the victim also go through a pregnancy. However, the baby itself is an innocent bystander in the crime, and it should not be given the death penalty for the rapist's actions. Once again, I thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to seeing her argument. SOURCES:1. . http://www.slate.com......2. . http://prolifeaction.org......3. Http://www. Lifenews. Com. .. .. .