The core issue isn't religion or control, it's whether an unborn human is a person we're allowed to kill. Biologically, from fertilization there's a distinct, living human organism, not just a clump of tissue. My opponent will stress bodily autonomy, and that's a real value. But no one has absolute autonomy over another's life; we don't let parents abandon a newborn. If the unborn is human, then choosing life isn't imposing a religion, it's extending basic protection. The other side's best point is that pregnancy is uniquely demanding. Still, hardship and dependency don't erase someone's right to exist. That's why I stand pro life.

The other side's own logic lands exactly where I stand: killing an innocent human being is wrong, and the unborn is one. Their fallback is autonomy or personhood, but autonomy doesn't license ending an innocent life, and personhood gets asserted rather than demonstrated. Their strongest point is real, though: pregnancy demands an enormous amount from a woman's body, far more than most obligations we ask of anyone. And I'd concede that's genuinely heavy. But hardship, even severe hardship, doesn't strip someone of the right to exist. We don't let parents abandon a newborn because caring for it is exhausting. That's why life wins here.

The practical consequence of my position is simple: when we can't prove whether someone counts, we don't kill them and apologize later. That's how we already treat comas and newborns. My opponent's fork actually lands with me, since either the unborn isn't a person, which nobody's demonstrated, or we protect it. And yes, pregnancy can be brutally hard, and I'll keep conceding that. But a heavy, temporary burden isn't the same as an irreversible death. We can support women enormously without legalizing the ending of that life. That's the safer, more consistent rule.