The idea of abortion all together in my opinion is wrong. Although I know in some extreme cases like finding out late or pregnancy through rape could conflict my argument, which is why I decided on an 8 week limit rather than being totally against abortion. Also the 24 weeks which they allow currently is far to long. I believe that if it can't be stopped it should at least be shortened. As someone who is expecting at the moment 24 weeks is far to long a time to decide, plus by this stage you already feel movements and have a bump (proving the baby is already individual and most certainly alive). By 8 weeks the fetus already starts to look like a human and has unique finger prints. After finding out at 4 weeks, which most cases do, then a further 4 weeks is enough time to make a decision as to if your willing to commit to the baby or not.
Started this off, I would like to say that I am Pro-Life. I am simply trying to point out the illogical belief that you can be rationally partially pro-life or partially pro-prebirth infanticide. So, for this debate I will pretend I am pro-choice.
So here's the catch with my opponent's argument, it has a faulty premise. Why should a baby not be aborted? According to my opponent it's because it has certain characteristics after week 8 that make it human... and yet, whether this baby is human changes if it was conceived as a result of rape or finding out late in the pregnancy?
I would like for my opponent to explain to me why a baby is worth less if it was a rape child or found out about later. Does this lower it to sub-human status? Or is it possible that this position that abortion after a certain point, except for certain reasons, is irreconcilable with a sanctity of life position.
If it really is a woman's choice, then why are we limiting it by a faulty premise?