Abortion cannot be justified logically.

I would love to explain the benefits of privatization, but it would take too much time and it doesn't really have much bearing on this debate. I'll try to address it briefly. It is private industry's very preoccupation with money that makes privatization favorable. Whereas the government has no accountability and no motivation to conduct its operations with any kind of efficiency, the very existence of a private firm depends on the quality of its service and its ability to efficiently deliver that service. Corporations frequently give generously to charity, partly because of the publicity. But I would not expect corporations to take care of the poor. It is up to individuals to help the poor financially. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals say they feel sorry for the poor and force everyone else to give them money, while conservatives feel sorry for the poor and give them their own money. "Okay. Fine. A fertilized egg is technically alive, but so are tumors. Think about it. All tissue is alive, and actually by your definition of human life (being a cell, capable of cell division and able to perform cellular functions) a tumor qualifies" Wow. I don't think I've ever had my words twisted worse than you just did. When did I give that definition of human life? I was defining LIFE. A tumor is not human, a fertilized egg is. So, since you have conceded that a fertilized egg is indeed alive, and since its DNA is human, it is a human life. Abortion kills that human life and is, therefore, murder. No, I don't know that there are different levels of "alive". Something is either alive or it is not. There are different levels of consciousness or sentience, or what have you, but we don't define and organize life by its level of consciousness, we define it by its DNA. A fertilized egg has human DNA and is alive, and is, therefore, a human. Abortion kills that human life and is, therefore, murder. Whether or not it is actually conscious and thinking does not change the fact that it is human, nor does it change the nature of the crime. It simply becomes humane murder as opposed to cruel murder. I'm not basing my arguments purely on emotion. You would have had to ingore all of my arguments in order to make that statement. I said that, while emotions are nothing to base an argument on, they are certainly pertinent in matters of morality. http://www.abortionno.org... According to this, and other websites, over three thousand abortions are performed every day. "Now, I'll admit, that's not a figure I like, and I don't at all like the idea of killing pre-fetuses myself, but honestly, it beats the alternative." So, in other words, you don't agree with abortion? What are we debating about then? There aren't more adoptions because adopting couples typically want to adopt infants, not the type of kids you described who bounce from one foster home to another. If people would put their babies up for adoption instead of aborting them, there would be plenty of couples willing to adopt them. "I hate to say it, but in this day and age, that's okay. Why do we have contraception? You may be morally opposed to recreational sex but it's a pretty integral part of the nation now. Look at television, media, advertising, whatever. It's all pretty sexually charged. This is called a bandwagon fallacy. You're saying that it's okay to have recreational sex because everyone is doing it. Just because everyone is doing something doesn't make it right. "And as for this whole abstinence thing. From an evolutionary or religious or whatever standpoint you're coming from, you're right. But again, let's face it, people have sex out of wedlock now. It isn't the 1800's where women couldn't roll their sleeves up past their elbows. Times have changed." Bandwagon fallacy again. Just because it's widely accepted doesn't make it right. "And no offense, but if you think this debate isn't going to do anything, why'd you start it?" When did I ever say that this debate wouldn't do anything? "Before I stop, though, I just wanted to point out that by making abortion illegal, do you really think you're going to stop it? More likely, a bunch of illegal abortion clinics will pop up with untrained and possibly dangerous personnel." People still murder despite the fact that we have laws against it. Does that mean we should legalize murder? Of course not. That is one of the most fallacious arguments I have ever heard. If someone wants to risk their life murdering their baby, that's their business. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to prevent others from doing it.