This house supports abortion

Thanks for the awesome response. I will now try too give a better response than last time, as I have no time parameters. I will deconstruct your response and weave my substantive into it. You dedicated the first paragraph too talking about the cost of raising a child and about the costs presented. I still stand by my view that if a women was to have an unplanned pregnancy, it would be best to put that child into adoption. I read the article you put up about adoption, and am still not convinced by it. If you have an unplanned pregnancy, that is your fault, not the babies. It is your responsibility to decide between adoption or parenting, as I believe murder isn't a viable option. Also about me asking for sources, I was just saying you didn't provide them, but I went with your argument anyways. Sorry if you took that comment the wrong way, but I do believe studies are quite important in this context. Next you talk about how I fair to support my claim to why I believe the child's life should not end because of the parents "right to choice". I will do so now. I have already established the fact, in my previous response, that proves the child is in fact human, and since this wasn't addressed in this response, I assume we can agree on that. Abortion should not be legal, on this basis alone. All human life has equal value, no matter how old or young. I don't think I need facts or statistics to argue on this basis. So basically what I am trying to argue, is that all human life is equal, therefore a human shouldn't have the choice too murder another human for their personal benefit. Next you disagree with my statement about your first point being reliant on your second. I still stand by this claim. You argue that this is because this debate is not completely based on morality, where I would argue that it is. I think morality is absolutely the overriding factor in this debate, because it plays with life itself. No amount of economic analysis can compensate for the simple fact that abortion is murder. As humans, we shouldn't support murder for the benefit of another. Murder is far to serious to be looked over. A general rule of a good society is that murder is bad. The mother should only be able to prioritize herself in situations of direct life or death (e. g. chemotherapy). In any other situation, an abortion should not be able to happen. Thirdly you accept the fact that fetus' are humans. Everything you say here is correct, until you contradict yourself at the end. You say you believe that a fetus is not a person, but a human. Then you say one of the requirements for being a human, to be a person. This makes no sense, and leads me to question the validity of this point. Next you address Singers theory. I will admit, in my previous response I deconstructed this poorly, considering I as under heavy time constraints, but now I can talk about this in more detail. Considering I talked about your link to why a human and a person are not the same already, I will supply an alternative definition. The general definition of a person is "a human being regarded as an individual" (. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...). Considering we already acknowledged that the fetus is separate from the mother, we can assume it is a person (remember you acknowledged individual human life begins at fertilization). In your conclusion, one thing stood out too me. "If you don't agree with abortions, don't get one". I know this is just figure of speech, and not to do with your point, but i'll talk about it anyways. I feel like this is basically saying "if you don't agree with something, just don't do it". Using this logic, I could say "if you don't believe in harming people, just don't do it, if other people want to, that is their choice". This fails to acknowledge the value of human life. This argument is much better suited to words, rather than actions.