Abortion

'...I don't believe this is harming the child as it could not survive on it' own' Many people in this world cannot survive on their own. Obviously you do care about the lives of the seriously disabled, but without the right help they cannot survive on their own. This is the same with the fetus. It is helpless, and needs a mother. And even if the mother had a c-section, that baby is still valid for life, as every baby cannot survive on it's own. So if you stick to what you said, it doesn't matter if any babies are murdered, they cannot survive on their own, so they are not being harmed. 'Let's say that we lived in a world with no emotions. That would basically mean there is nothing. Humans fall into the category of animals. And without emotions, animals are nothing.' let's imagine a world were people's emotions given more priority than people's lives. If someone complained to the government because someone looked prettier than them and made them feel bad, the pretty person would be executed, as just by walking outside she made someone else felt self conscious. Obviously, this is ridiculous. What I am trying to say is that these hypothetical scenarios where one statement is used out of context achieve nothing, as they can easily be countered with an absurd hypothetical world on the other end of the opinion. The context I was referring to was the emotions of the mother vs the life of her child. 'If a couple wants to make love this is the best they can do. ' Yes, but it is their decision to make love. Nobody is forcing them to (that would be rape, but we're not talking about that in this point). They must accept responsibility for their actions. Just as when you cross the street you know there is a chance you could be hit by a car. In a perfect world, accidental pregnancies wouldn't happen, and people wouldn't be hit by cars, but we don't live in a perfect world and accidents happen. The difference with these two examples of risk is that crossing a street is pretty much essential of getting from point A to point B (at least in a city), while having sex is completely optional and not essential in any circumstance. You mention that when a mother claims she can't afford a child, she's probably telling the truth. Well probably yes, but so what? Like I said before if you can't afford a child, don't have sex. What we need is more personal responsibility for people's actions. I just don't understand why this is not clear. When you make that decision, you are doing so knowing pregnancy can occur. Take responsibility! It's nobody's fault but your own. But let's say a woman gets pregnant anyway. You mention how the child will not grow up in the best living conditions. Okay, but who's fault is that? The mother's. You seen to claim that you want the best for the child, well so do I. Except my actions to ensure the well being of the child include restrictions to not let it be killed before it has even taken it's first breath. Your solution is to kill it. It seems mad to me that you say 'Well, I care about the well being of the child, let's just kill it now so it can't be harmed in the future' 'As for the alcohol topic. I must say that I agree with you. They were stupid. I still think this girl/woman should have the right to get an abortion if they would like to.' What? Why? I'll just be repeating myself if I address this so just read my previous rebuttal and replace the word 'sex' with 'alcohol' 'Con declares after asking/ wondering that there are only two options remaining for me to agree with/ disagree with. I say that there are almost always more than two ways to address something. This is one of those times.' Well go on then. What's your third option, I'd love to hear it. It can't be one of these two though: 1. You believe human life begins at conception, and therefore agree with my view. 2. There is a cut-off point in terms of development as to what constitutes human life, and what is worthy of human rights So if you take a peek at your statement rebuttal for Round 2, you will notice you say: 'To this, I still say it depends upon the stage of development of the child.' Okay, development of child, okay fine... wait hold on! You said you had other options other than option 1. and 2. But, option 2. says 'There is a cut off point in terms of development as to what constitutes human life, and what is worthy of human life' The wording of 'Pro-Choice' is very clever indeed, as if you disagree with that, it sounds like you are against people making choices. Here's the thing, I am. Only certain choices though, choices such as whether I can pull the trigger of a gun and murder a passerby on the street. I feel in that situation I shouldn't have the choice, as I am killing someone. So how is that different from having an abortion? You're making a choice to abort. I'm making a choice to pull the trigger, yet one of them is considered murder and the other isn't. It is not about choice, not in this scenario. It is not about the choice to take a human life (unless it saves more lives).