Abortion is generally immoral.

On MoralityActually, my point about feeling guilt was that people feel guilty over many of the same things. For example, if one does not feel remorse at having taken a life, they are considered sociopathic.You actually reaffirmed my point with your second paragraph. I mentioned that there are people who don't feel remorse. We consider them psychopathic and lock them away in a mental institution. Most people consider murder and rape wrong. It's pretty difficult to argue that they are right. Also, killing someone is not always murder. Killing can be done out of revenge or justice. Regarding the person who has been wronged: he would feel guilty if the wrongdoer only stole something from him. He would not feel guilty if the wrongdoer killed his wife. People still regret crimes of passion.Morals may keep order but there are many moralistic beliefs that go against human nature. Human nature is selfish, and self-preservation is our most basic of instincts. Yet there are people who give their own lives to protect strangers. Morality is not simple "herd instinct." There is an objective moral standard that exists, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.Scientific EvidenceActually, I didn't assert that only human life is sacred. Rogue has created a strawman argument against me. I asserted that human life is sacred, not that only human life is sacred.What I meant by my assertion was that if the thing growing in the womb is not yet a living human, then no justification for abortion would be necessary. I was not asserting it is okay to kill animals.Philosophical ArgumentRogue has failed to show how having a personality makes one a valuable living being and not something to just be thrown away like yesterday's garbage. Cats may have "personality," but they are not sentient on the same level as humans. They cannot question their place in the universe or create technologies, or become better than is in their nature to become. Yet Rogue would place more value on a cat that can never be more than a cat, and not on a young living human. If having personality was how value was judged, then it should be morally justifiable to kill someone in their sleep when they are inactive and have no personality.The problem is that Rogue is offering arbitrary standards for value, standards that don't matter one way or another. I do care about an unborn fetus as much as my friends. In fact, I have a friend who miscarried a child and it affected both him and his wife greatly. The loss affected them as it would have a born child. So yes, preborn humans have great effect on those of us outside the womb.Rogue has also failed to sustain her argument for being loved. After all, a homeless person is just as valuable as a human being as the average person or the President. She claims "those who knew the homeless person" would mourn him, but the same is true of the average person or the President. The only difference being more people know each successive person, and this again proves my point that Rogue's criterion means that value comes in degrees, which it does not. You are either valuable or you're not.This is the difference between intrinsic and instrumental value. Something that is intrinsically valuable is valuable as an ends to itself, like happiness. Instrumental value is something used to bring you something intrinsically valuable. If happiness has intrinsic value, video games have instrumental value. They bring you happiness.I am not a sports fan. A Cal Ripken, Jr. rookie card may be worth thousands of dollars to a collector or a sports fan, but it's worthless to me. Whatever the perceived value of the baseball card is, it is still only a piece of cardboard. If I rip it up, the printer is only out a dollar or two. The same, but reverse, is true of humans. One may perceive a preborn human as worthless because they are unwanted, and one may cherish her because she is her child. Whatever the perceived value of the preborn human is, that doesn't change their intrinsic value. They are a member of humanity, an intrinsically valuable species, and there is no mystical event that happens in the 8 inch journey down the birth canal that suddenly adds value to a human. After all, if a woman doesn't want her child but delivers her anyway, the child will still be unwanted by the mother. So obviously being wanted doesn't affect your worth one way or another.The president is under strict guard because 1), there are people who want him dead, and 2) he has more instrumental value as our president than the average citizen. He is responsible for running our country, which is something that I am not qualified to do. So if the president and I are ever in mortal danger, the president is likely the one to be saved. This doesn't mean he's more valuable as a human, just that he's more instrumentally valuable to our nation.Everything becomes a point system with me because of the arbitrary nature of your criteria. In fact, in President Lincoln's famous speech when he freed the slaves (I'm paraphrasing here), if you believe being white gives you the right, then take care because you'll be a slave to anyone with fairer skin than your own. If you believe it is intelligence, take care again: you'll be a slave to anyone who comes along smarter than you. It's the same principle. If you assigned arbitrary criteria for personhood, you are bound by them, as well.You are discriminating against humans in a stage of being less developed than you. They simply haven't developed all of these things yet. But that's not a bad thing -- even outside the womb, we don't actually stop developing until we're in our 20's.Born children have not "started a life" with family and friends, they have started life outside the womb with them. But they do not have a valuable life worth saving, under your criteria.You mistake the pro-life position. The pro-life position is that all humans are created equal (sound familiar?). All humans are equally valuable, from fertilization to natural death. Women are valuable, too, and every step should be taken to ensure that a woman can care for her child and that the pregnancy proceeds as smoothly as humanly possible.The mother's life is not at risk, as I have indicated (and will do so again).I mistyped, sorry. Blacks were considered 3/5ths a person for voting purposes, but that doesn't negate my argument that they weren't considered human.I actually got the number of 13 in 100,000 from a debate with a pro-choicer (that was the number he used). Upon further research, the number is closer to 251 in 100,000, but the number is declining. [1] This still translates into less than 1%. In fact, that number is still a bit misleading because deaths caused by abortions are taken into account.I have already explained why humans have value. They are intrinsically valuable. Value is not something gained at some arbitrary point in their lives.Actually, Roe v. Wade was based on lies. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL, stated the numbers for abortion-related deaths were greatly exaggerated and he knew the numbers were false. [2]Also, the 14th Amendment talks about citizenship, but it is illegal to kill illegal immigrants. The 14th Amendment does not guarantee abortion because even non-citizens are protected by law.I have not forgotten anything. I just don't see why killing someone should be acceptable because leaving them alive may be an inconvenience.I am running low on characters. I believe I have successfully shown why abortion is immoral, because it takes the life of an innocent human.[1] http://www.thelancet.com...(10)60518-1/fulltext [2] From Aborting America, Doubleday, 1979