Abortion is morally wrong

Thank you for your timely response. By the way, unless you can prove that the fetus is not a human being, my argument is still valid. The reason for my question is the fact that it has no significance to the life of the fetus, yet that's why people think that it is okay to abort a baby during the first trimester of a pregnancy and not the second or third. It is still a baby regardless of not being fully developed. Why? Because a lot of people where not fully developed when they were born, does that give us the right to kill them because the are not a "fully developed" human being. By the way, regarding your case of semen, the semen is just semen and is not a human being. Being fused with a human egg causes some kind of stuff to occur that results in a human being. The sperm has the "potential" of becoming a human being, that does not make it a human being. Why? Because during intercourse, millions of sperm is released into the woman's body. Only the ones that fuse with eggs become human beings. Sperm on it's own doesn't result in a human being that is why you don't see the woman giving birth to millions of babies. If you don't agree with this, why don't you go ahead to state what makes a fetus a baby? Being born? I never said that it is immoral for you to have limited number of babies or no baby at all. Like I said earlier, only a fertilized egg is considered a human being, and egg on its own is not a human being and if a woman removes her ovaries, it is not an abortion because no baby has been killed. I greatly value women's rights because I am one, but there are limitations to rights. In America, we have the right to freedom of speech as stated in the First Amendment, but that doesn't give us the right to hate speech (eg Donald Sterling). There are limitations on rights. Just because a woman has the right to her body, doesn't give her the right to kill her baby just because she can't raise it or because it would remind her of something bad. This is because when she gets pregnant, it is no longer her, but her and her baby. The right to abortion is like saying that women have the right to kill their born baby if they can no longer care for them, after all it is their babies and they kept them in their body for months. I didn't compare orphans to dogs, I said that if you kill a dog, you could be arrested, yet people do that to unborn babies and the authorities would not bat an eyelid. "As for disability, one could say that society has a moral obligation to allow parents to make the choice to abort." Seriously?!!!!!!!! Are you in your right senses right now?!! You would give parents the right to kill their child (both unborn and born) just because they have a disability? Wow! By the way, just because developing countries practice it, it is good. I'm from a developing country and I still think it is immoral. Why do you assume that the child is only the rapist's child. It is the woman's child too. Children are blessings and we are wrong to reinforce the idea that the child is the rapist's ONLY. Ever since the rapist turned his back on the woman, he denied being the father of the child, thereby making the woman the sole parent and responsibility of child. Like I said, if that woman receives one million dollars, she would jump in joy. She would not cry when she receives the money and say "Why did I receive this? Now I would be constantly reminded of the rape." Yet when she gets a child, who is worth more than that money, she would just kill the child without batting an eye. Right. Who is harsher? The rapist or the murderer? Unborn children have as much life to life as born children. A fertilized egg is the same as an 8 week fetus because the are one thing, a human being.