is abortion moral

Rebuttals:the sources of my adoption argument were a bit off and I concede that when I did more digging into the matter and found the numbers a bit different. While I concede this point adoption is an option and should be considered way before abortion especially if you can not afford the child. This doesn't make any sense. Con is saying adoption isn't a viable option at the same time as he is. This doesn't make any sense. I have already proved that only around 100,000 adoptions happen per year, while 750,000 abortions happen each year. There simply isn't a system that will allow us to take care of an extra 750,000 children yearly. What this will lead to is a massive strain on our infrastructure, but more importantly, abandoned children. Many mothers will not want to undergo the adoption process, which will lead to them either killing their baby or abandoning the baby. Voters, what is more moral: A safe abortion that takes place at a time where the fetus is not a human being, can't feel pain, and isn't conscious, or having thousands of babies die painful deaths? Now on the point of is the fetus alive. Pro makes the same gigantic assumption that I have that the fetus is not alive and feels no pain and has no intrinsic value as pro stated "Without verbal reports and direct access to the mind of a fetus, inferences about what fetuses are able to experience depends on the interpretation of secondary evidence. if you didn't know if a fetus was human or not you probably wouldn't kill it. unless pro can prove with conclusive evidence that that fetus can not feel pain I feel that I win this point because without evidencePro has given Con evidence. The nervous system of a fetus is not developed enough to the point where it can feel pain until around the 26th week of pregnancy. Is it possible that this estimate is a little bit off? Yes. But do we seriously believe that it is off by more then 2-3 weeks? Does anyone seriously believe a zygote can feel pain? Also, Con concedes that abortion before a fetus can feel pain is moral. Instead of attacking the idea that abortion before a fetus is able to feel pain is moral, Con has instead focused in on what specific week fetuses can feel pain. This is a concession of the debate right here. Furthermore, the reason why medical researchers are unsure of when fetuses can feel pain is because pain is a subjective concept, and there is no objective way to measure it. To explain my evidence more, here is a quote from Anne Davis, a doctor:"Pain occurs in [the] brain," Davis said. When a person is injured — say, you stub your toe, for example — a signal travels from the foot up through the nerves in the leg to the spinal cord, and then from spinal cord up to the brain, Davis said. Once that signal gets into the brain, the information is transmitted through a complex web of neurons to an area of the brain called the cortex she said. "Why does this matter? Until the brain is developed, it is literally impossible for a fetus to feel pain. Therefore, my original argument stands: Since fetuses can't feel pain until the 3rd trimester, it is morally just to abort a fetus before that point to save the fetus, mother, and family of pain after birth. "Without verbal reports and direct access to the mind of a fetus, inferences about what fetuses are able to experience depending on the interpretation of secondary evidence. As clearly stated by pro there is no first-hand evidence so It is Clearly not moral to kill the baby. Do we need first hand evidence? By this logic, the dinosaurs never existed as we have never seen them. pro asks con for evidence on why fetus equals human life well I assume pro was once a fetus and never stopped being human offspring and has just grown a bit. the fetus is human and in fact alive and not impossible to prove as pro states because I'm alive and kicking and human from the start and didn't change to being a human. Voters, this isn't actual evidence. Con is merely claiming that fetuses are human beings because Con was once a fetus and is now a human being. Con hasn't actually proved that a fetus is a human being, merely claiming that because since fetuses grow into human beings, they are human beings. Pro has already disproved this, by showing the various human characteristics that fetuses don't exhibit. So in conclusion Things, pro needs to answer at what stage does it become murder to kill a fetus. is it when the mother wants to give birth if not is it worthless there needs to be a clear line drawn by pro. Certainly. Once a fetus reaches viablilty, it is murder. At that point, a fetus has developed to a point where if it was born, it would be able to survive on it's own. This point is around 28 weeks [2]. And lastly if the fetus is not human pro is a fetus outside the womb and so am I by pros reasoning so is it moral to kill a baby 2 minutes before it is born no what about a month before that no you study the stages and draw the line where it is human or not and if you were dying and on life support you would not be living independently would that mean your not human because your not living indepinleyNo Con, I am not a fetus out of the womb. That is rather insulting. I can walk, talk, play sports, think, read, contemplate life, feel pain, feel love, feel betrayal, feel excitement, and can live out my life. Fetuses can't. I answered Con's claims about when abortion is murder. As for Con's claim about how people on life support aren't independent, therefore they aren't human, there are 2 crucial differences to this. First, as I stated in round 2, "While we may have various aids to help us survive, we are not connected to another person, therefore we are independent human beings. "Secondly, people on life support have lived independently in the past. Fetuses haven't. on no point has pro-proven his claims only reasons to abort the baby for all of his modern medical research it's hard to argue with stats but he didn't give any. Follow the links which will include evidence and statement from world-famous scientists bottom link is most informative so to end I think we should go by the old value innocent until proven guilty alive until proven dead which pro can't do. Con stated the bottom link was the most informative. I looked at the name of the website and immediately stopped. His website is the NAAPC, or the Nation Association for the Advancement of Preborn Children. Sounds like a very biased source. ConclusionVoters should give Pro the following points:Conduct:Con made multiple ad hominem attacks throughout his argumentS&G:Con's arguments were hard to read, and there were many spelling and grammar mistakes throughout it. Sources:Pro's sources were from neutral websites/scientists, while Con's links were to heavily biased websites. Arguments:This is the big one. Pro's main point throughout the debate was that since fetuses can't feel pain and aren't human beings, it is morally just to abort them in order to stop pain after birth. Con never attacked this idea, only claiming that fetuses were human beings (without evidence) and attacked Pro's evidence proving fetuses couldn't feel pain until late in the pregnancy. However, Con did not actually dispute Pro's evidence, merely attacking it as it "was secondhand", a mischaracterization of Pro's evidence, as explained above. This is a virtual concession, as Con concedes that abortion before fetal viability isn't immoral. Finally, Con doesn't have an answer as what to do with fetuses that wouldn't be immoral. Pro believes that the pain that would be brought upon these babies is much greater then any sort of moral misgivings one might have about abortion. So, since Con conceded, or at least fails to dispute, Pro's point that abortion before viability is moral, Pro should win arguments.