abortion is wrong

I suppose I'll take your opening statements as your first argument, since you aren't responding. First, we must acknowledge that neither science, nor religion, can come to an ultimate consensus as to when exactly a fetus becomes a human being. There are some religions that claim a soul enters the embryo at conception, (a claim of which is unprovable and untestable). This concept followed to a logical conclusion fails to make sense, however. While some reasonably claim that it is when the heart begins to beat, or the brain begins to show activity, or perhaps when the child could survive on its own without the mother"s life support system. Some, (although a minority) claim that it"s even up until the birth of the child. Claiming no celebrates "conception day" but a "birthday". It is true that if someone kills a woman intending to have a child, then it is counted as a double homicide, (or in your description, vehicular manslaughter). However, there are two important factors to keep in mind: 1.Our laws are not up to date with our rapid moral progress and scientific understanding. Up until a few years ago it was illegal for homosexuals to even have sex in some states, much less get married. Up until a few decades ago women didn"t have the right to vote or serve in the military. And just a little over a century ago, African Americans only counted as 1/5 of a person, and were held as property. Although it is a valid point that killing a woman in any stage of pregnancy is considered a double homicide, this might be a law that needs changing. 2.Killing the unborn child of a woman who had EVERY INTENTION of giving birth is considered murder because of the autonomous rights of the mother. The wrong-doing was the violation of her personal human rights, and the denying of her expectations of a child. This understanding should simultaneously support the mothers rights to terminate the pregnancy if she so chose. It is also true that federal law says that abortions are legal because of Roe v. Wade in 1973. If we are going to use the law to influence our decisions, I suppose I"d claim that this Supreme Court case will trump any other law that might be used to counter my arguments. Laws don"t influence the people, as the people change they influence the laws. Here"s something interesting to think about, before I give the floor back to PRO. If abortions were again made illegal, women would have fewer rights than corpses. On my driver"s license, there"s a small hologram imagine that reads "organ donor" on the corner. If I didn"t check that box on the form when I applied for my license, there"s no legal way that any entity could harvest my organs. This is our understanding of "personal autonomy". This is the acknowledgement that every human being has a right to decide what they want to do with their body EVEN AFTER THEY DIE. That means even if my heart, lungs, and liver could each save one person, no one could touch my body. My remains would go to waste and I would have denied 3 people life-saving operations. It is unacceptable that when someone has been medically and legally considered dead, he or she's still has more rights than a pregnant woman. I give the floor back to PRO, who will now bring new arguments to defend his point, and may counter my arguments as well. Thanks for reading, and good luck.