Abortion, (from athiest perspective.)

well thanks for following up your debate. C1 - I made the two points in the other round 1. that adoption was a better alternative and 2. that a fetus has senses so he/she can feel and he/she can dream thus proving there is brain activity meaning he/she is human. Let me say my opponent has not challenged those points my opponent has instead proposed that all the children that can die at an early age (doesn't indicate how early) must. My opponent further moves on to say this is because of overpopulation which causes famine. "Those who would choose to not go through with an abortion but raise there child up, they at the very least show they are emotionally and financially capable of handling doing so. This is a wanted adaptation for our species to pass on to the rest of the population. Those that want to choose abortion could do so for different reasons, like emotional stress from the burden of having this child, of keeping it. Money problems with providing for it. Or perhaps it's not that they can't accomplish the task of raising the child allowing it to live if push came to shove but the timing of its coming is one of massive inconvenience and they just don't want too. Whatever the case, they have the common theme of showing the parent to be unable to adapt in some way to this situation life provided unless you count escape an adaptation. If escape must be labeled an adaptation it's not a positive one to have spread through our species." First off choosing to have a kid over an abortion doesn't automatically mean the families are stable or have means or that they are emotionally and financially capable of raising a child. Quite frankly you can't discern every family apart by saying mothers who don't choose abortion their offspring is better because.....well you don't say why they're kids are better you don't say why it's a wanted adaptation. Furthermore a parent that chooses abortion you label is as an adaptation of escape. Is this a genetics argument? mothers who choose to have a baby have better genetics than those who don't. Mothers that choose abortion can easily choose to have their baby adopted whatever the reason for an abortion an adoption is more desirable because it gives a chance at life an there's room for potential. 'How can we even think about allowing, much less make it manditory to continue the life of beings that have no face no history and contributions to the world as of yet who would be the children of people they were inconvenient enough for that they wanted out of birthing them when the globes unchecked growth in population is causing the deaths of millions who do have faces and histories. And not just any death but the slow death of starvation. Sometimes quicker when there the result of the riots or the wars over our dwindling resources." Okay it is more logical to give a chance to someone with potential then to others with none people with a history don't deserve to live because they have a history they've lived longer if the choice is between a 30 yr old man and a unborn baby then I would say choose to kill the 30 yr old guy what has he done that he deserves to live? My opponent asked why does it matter how human the fetus is? this statement is a concession to a fetus's humanity. The above statement sounds like a statement of morality "the slow death of starvation," " the death of millions who do have faces, "dwindling resources" I now ask why does it matter how someone who was born and has had a chance to live dies? It is only reasonable to allow them to die and let all things with the potential of life to be allowed to live because then we would be doing something productive all unborn babies have potential and we simply don't know what they'll acomplish when they grow up. My opponent summarized his points. "1) Because of growing over-population of the planet, the deaths of these fetuses that the mothers do no want is virtually manditory to start slowing population growth's progress. I say that over population isn't a problem like all things nature will take it's course due to human growth a bacterium or virus will devastate the world and bring the population down. 2) The advancement of our species has always been based on the reproduction of those that can adapt, cope with wider variaty of situations, tougher situations. Pregnant women who want abortion in some way cant adapt or cope in some way with delievering what there reproducing. Pregnant women can always choose adoption if the point is that they don't want a baby give him/her to someone else. and I object to you saying that women who want an abortion are weaker than those who don't and that they can't adapt or cope to what they're producing that makes no sense whatsoever now because a women doesn't want a kid she has bad genes? You can't discern what kind of genes the parents have and you can't imply that because they don't want a child the child would be unbeneficial to the race. 3) Though my opponent made some vallient arguments that fetuses are indeed human he failed to make any connecting point as to why that should matter. I contend there has been no reason as of now given to us that should make us think that a fetus being human should matter. my opponent concedes that fetuses are human and 4) It is better for the majority of the worlds deaths to be due to abortions than due to famine, and war over resorces or other over-population related problems." I say why is it better for deaths to be due to abortion? just as long as people die isn't that good for bringing down the population growth? logically speaking it is better to let those in famine and war die then to kill those that have potential. abortion is never the answer when giving your baby away if you don't want him/her can easily be chosen. it's more rational to kill everyone with aids than to let those that are going to be aborted die. death is imminent for both of them but the one's with aids have already had time on earth. thank you.