Late term abortion is wrong, and ought to be illegal

Thanks again for the debate. You are most gracious. Now back to the debate. I will argue in the following manner. 1. I will attack your conclusion that nature defines human rights. 2. I will return to the population control argument that I offered in round 1. I disagree that Human Rights evolves out of "nature." Especially the notion that emotional feeling and reason develops when people interact. I would argue that people are not naturally inclined to interact. I think this is evident in the fact that more and more families are experiencing broken relationships and divorces. Relationships and social structures take work. They are not natural. More natural to humans is selfishness. "Looking out for ourselves," and self preservation and self-centered actions are natural to humans. Selfishness is natural not human interaction. In nature, we see natural selection (Charles Darwin) or what Herbert Spencer would call "survival of the fittest." A very selfish concept, if you ask me. However you changed your argument to say Homo sapiens. So let's look at the Homo sapien. Take a look at any babies or toddlers. They are by nature selfish. A baby is all out for itself. "Feed me, change me, burp me." A baby is by nature selfish. Or a toddler in the grocery store throwing a huge fit because the child doesn't get what he wants. The child is selfish. How many times have you seen a child "naturally" share without the prompting of a parent or teacher?" It doesn't happen. All mankind is naturally inclined to selfishness and self-reliance. Thus, the feelings and rights of others are irrelevant. So your definition of human rights coming from nature is flawed. I remain that there are no human rights. You don't have a right to live. Life is a privilege not a right. As to your statement: "If you do not believe in the idea of "human rights" there is not much that I can debate with you on this matter..." The problem is not that I don't believe in human rights. The problem is you failed in your definition of human rights based in nature. Thus, my argument that no one has human rights must stand. I do see a problem with the statement you made that: "I do happen to think that those which can be shown to think and feel in some manner, are sympathetic to people, and that they are also often naturally deigned worthy of rights in a manner similar to that I sketched out for people." This is a week statement to which I will give a historical fact to rebut. I believe Adolph Hitler could think and feel. But as discussed in my earlier argument, Hitler sought out what was best for himself. He did not give the Jews any rights except extermination. So once again your thought that those people which can "think and feel" are sympathetic to people is flawed. People don't have to show others "rights" if it is beneficial to the self as Mr. Hitler proved. You failed to adequately attack my argument (1) about how late term abortion would help population control. What you personally "feel," "think" or your personal "opinion" on the argument is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that you feel it is "immoral" or "abhorrent". Respectfully, your personal feelings just are not relevant to the truth that abortion is a sure way of population control. In addition, contraceptives would also provide good population control. I would argue for both (I give you credit for that addition that helps my argument) . To control population I would say abort and have safe sex. You obviously don't deny that there is a population problem or else you would have stated it. There is a population problem. You obviously don't deny that this population problem is causing a depletion of our resources. Which in turn increases demand, lowering supply, and causing world resources prices to go up. This is a real wide problem that you haven't taken the time to argue at all except by saying that you don't "feel" or "think" it is moral.