Abortion is immoral and the destruction of life.

I would recommend not accepting anymore debates that make you so angry. I was involved in the creation of my son in other ways. My labor paid for the insurance that covered the health care cost. I am also halfway through raising that child, so if you think that 9 months of pregnancy trumps 18 years of financial and emotional support, you should try having the next one and see if your perspective changes. Since Con has already conceded that abortion is the destruction of life, all I must do is prove that the destruction of life is immoral. I will go further than that, as many points Con has made should be refuted and some of them contradict the point that abortion is the destruction of life as I understand them. A5 The destruction of life is immoral even if a person or group of people benefits from that destruction. Even if no one benefits from the destruction of life, it should be up to the life being destroyed. Since we do not have the capability to find out if a fetus would like to live or die, taking the option of life off the table is immoral and reprehensible. (I'm sorry, I really don't know what letter to use. :( ) C1 A fetus can begin feeling pain as early as 20 weeks. A child is not fully self-aware until four or five years of age. When someone is under anesthesia, they are not conscious. The point is that none of these are useful in determining if a being has a right to life, and therefor would be immoral in destroying said life. If a living person is unconscious, unreasoning, unmotivated, uncommunicative, and unaware; they still have a right to life. If a person doesn't have a heartbeat, they are dead, so the destruction of life would be impossible. This should be the only qualification on whether a fetus has a right to life. I concede that a fetus does not have these abilities, but since babies don't either, it is not acceptable to destroy their life in regards to morality. C2 I agree that if a fetus is going to cause death or serious illness to the mother, she can abort it. However, if someone at your work gives you a cold and transmits their virus into you, they cannot be held liable for the pain and discomfort they have caused you. Since a baby poses no criminal intent and cannot be held accountable for its actions (since it was a direct cause of consensual sex) I find it disturbing that anyone would blame a fetus for the pain brought on by themselves. C3 This is a utilitarian viewpoint. The same that leads to all atrocities. "Any means to an end", "A few must be sacrificed for the good of the many" This is why I didn't want to argue the effects on society as a whole. I find it immoral to force someone into sacrificing themselves for the benefit of everyone else. C4 I know women don't want to kill babies. I believe that almost all women feel remorseful after an abortion because they know that they have done something immoral. C5 This is another debate in itself which is why I will concede it here for the purpose of brevity. C6 I wouldn't say they carry no responsibilities afterwards unless you are talking about having an abortion. I would agree to that, but if the child is brought to term, they will have as much of a responsibility as the mother. This does nothing to prove that abortion is moral. It just says that since it is a woman's action, they should be able to do it, moral or otherwise without the consent of a man. C7 I care nothing about the dignity of either being for the sake of this debate. We are talking about the life of the fetus. Much more is at stake here then humiliation and pride. A women chooses an abortion. Pregnancy and childbirth is what would naturally happen without interference. A woman doesn't choose to carry to term. She would do that no matter what. She chooses to step in and take action to destroy the life of the fetus. This is where I can prove it is a premeditated, immoral act to decide to remove your unborn baby from existence. She is not deciding whether or not to give life to an inanimate object. The object is alive and she is choosing to end that life for her own selfish reasons. That is what makes it immoral. It is to her benefit that the unborn child has to die. C8 If I eat bacon for every meal until I die from a heart attack, I didn't have an "involuntary heart attack". It was the direct cause of my actions that caused my heart attack. This why what causes unwanted pregnancies. People want to have sex, but not deal with the potential consequences. This is why education will be the only thing that reduces abortions and not laws. Birth control pills fail when women fail to take it. Again, it was in response to their actions. Can the same be said about the father? If he didn't want to voluntarily create life and pay child support for 18 years, could he force the women to get an abortion? C9 Concede as I have stated, if the fetus dies or will not come to term, abortion would be a moral alternative. Since it is one of the very view, this should help me prove my point. Only when you are destroying the life of a fetus that is not viable could it be considered moral, so when the fetus is viable, it is an immoral action. C10 We are not talking about legality. Just morality where socioeconomic variables should not come into play. C11 Con counters themselves. Playing God is tricky business and is always immoral. C12 Again, no legal standpoints or laws should be discussed as it is not relevant to morality. Maybe Con would feel better if they know that I am undecided in this debate and secretly hoping they will win.