Abortion.

It isn't as easy as just giving your kid up for adoption and forgetting about him/her. Giving a child up for adoption will have a permanent impact on a woman, and studies show that she will actually go through the stages of grief afterward (4). Aborting a fetus which is not yet human is a lot different than giving up a baby. Once birth has occurred, some women are unable to go through with an adoption. It usually isn't because they suddenly realized how much they wanted a kid. No, once you hold your baby in your arms, a connection is formed. That same connection is not formed with a fetus in a womb (5). It is unethical to force a woman to make that connection before ripping the baby from her so that she can continue her life. Adoption isn't some magically perfect solution, either. Adopted people are 3.7-4.2 times more likely to attempt suicide. (6) Anyway, if the woman goes through with the adoption plan, she will always feel emotions ranging from emptiness to regret. Abortion? It's the complete opposite. 95% of women who have had abortions do not suffer from long-term guilt. In fact, the study reports "steady or improving levels of self-esteem, life satisfaction, stress, social support, stress, substance use, and symptoms of depression and anxiety over time post-abortion." (5) So yes, planning on adoption can still prevent a woman from reaching her full potential. If she goes through with it, she'll have emotional trauma. If she can't, she'll have to raise a child. As I explained later in my prior argument, women (and all people) are allowed to look out for themselves and their bodies. "Indirectly punishing the child for a rape it couldn't prevent"? I'm trying to say that that is so rarely the case that it isn't even worth discussing. You claim that abortion is "selfish." See? The woman is thinking about her own body and her own life. She thinks about what she can handle emotionally. For any given woman desiring an abortion, you can safely assume that she is not trying to make the fetus suffer because of the rape. Why are we focusing so much on rape? Neither of us have stances that change based on whether or not the pregnancy is from a rape. Whether or not killing a pregnant woman should be a double homicide is still a heavily debated topic. Some states don't even have fetal homicide laws like you are claiming (7). To answer you question regardless, the keyword is "consent." When a pregnant woman is killed, the fetus is killed without her consent. When this happens, it takes away her right to choose. As a pro-choicer, killing a fetus without the woman's consent is just as bad as denying her an abortion. So you can't really compare that to abortion. Unless of course, you are just using this as another reason that the fetus is human- a point which is doesn't prove. Partially because it's still being debated, and partially because it is problematic to harm someone else's fetus because it takes their choice, not because the fetus deserves rights. Your link is to a pro-life website, which is a very biased source. I have biased sources that are equally convinced fetuses are not human (8). I'm going to need straight scientific evidence before I just acknowledge that fetuses are human, but you're not going to find that. Most of the information on your link is just facts about random milestones in pregnancy. However, who's to say that any of that constitutes humanity? There is no scientific consensus on that. You twist the words around. The woman is not "[killing] to keep [her] life pristine and perfect." She is utilizing her right to bodily autonomy. Please look over this violin-player analogy: (9). Yes, I have been given life. But I have also been a fetus. As a pro-choicer, I am aware that I could have been aborted. And as happy and grateful as I am to be alive, my mother would not have been unjustified in making that choice. The other day, I was looking at pictures of my first-trimester ultrasound. I was not human. Being able to look at the fetus that grew up to be me, and still recognize the fact that my mother was under no obligation to give me life, gives me credibility. Plus, you didn't actually refute my analogy. "That would be in a matter to save someones life..." See (9). I am referring to the women who consented to sex but did not consent to pregnancy. They do not want to be pregnant, and it does not matter if their choices put them in that situation. They still have a right to bodily autonomy. I copied your formats for rhetoric effect. Anyway, I already addressed why adoption is not always a feasible alternative. Sometimes a mother is killed in childbirth and the baby still survives, which is what I was referring to. However, if you are talking about a threat during pregnancy, I'll acknowledge that. Thanks for clarifying. *A MESSAGE FOR ANYONE CONTEMPLATING ABORTION WHO READ MY OPPONENT'S LAST MESSAGE* Everything about strength is true. You can totally have this baby. Or you can have an abortion- there's no shame in that. It's your choice to make. Seriously, it's none of our business (or anyone else's). (4) https://www.childwelfare.gov... (5) http://time.com... (6) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... (7) http://www.ncsl.org... (8) [example of a biased source] https://rewire.news... (9) http://spot.colorado.edu...