Abortion is Wrong

First, I would like to apologize for adding the definition of life. I am writing a paper on abortion and copied my arguments from my paper. The reason I did not mean to copy the definition was because neither scientists nor philosophers have decided on when life starts, so I do my best to keep it out of formal debates.But the question isn't really "Is it alive?" then, is it? What separates a fetus from a pig, then? I guess that the fetus is less developed and human, but we still find it moral to slaughter animals because "we have the right to." Because we have the right to kill what we didn't hold for nine months or birth, but women do not have the right to "kill" what she has carried, the thing that is using her resources to live, not their own.Now, my opponent argues that the fetus has all the qualifications of life, as set by my definition.Yes, this is true, and I am not going to devalue your rebuttal because of my accidentally putting the definition of life. While all you say is true, the fetus is not breathing, and although the heart is beating and the brain shows activity, this brain activity does not, in this stage, mean consciousness. Yes, you said that the fetus will be able to, WHEN THEY'RE BORN. When they're born, they can sufficiently live independantly, obviously needing to be fed and washed by its parents. However, because it is not able to do anything before it is born, if it is born, then why is it wrong to terminate it? Because it has the potential to live or be birthed?You also mentioned value quite often in your rebuttal. Specifically, you mentioned sleeping and being in a coma. You neglected to mention that you can move and function in your sleep, and your dreams are a result of your unconcsious mind. But when you're in a coma.. well, we'll get to that in Euthanisia, won't we?And when talking about development, we aren't talking about deeper voices, starting your period, or any other miniscule development you would see between a 14 and 15 year old. We are talking about the capabilities to survive independantly, well... at least breathing independantly, showing consciousness. The baby is a human, my opponent argues.Simply put. yes it is. That does not qualify it to live if the mother does not want it to. That does not qualify it to live if it is a second daughter in China or other Asian cultures. You see, yes, the baby is a human being, but that does not automatically give it rights, especially rights over the mother. The mother is the host for this fetus, the mother has all authority over her own body and whatever may be inside of it. My opponent argues that teenagers were being irresponsible and deserve to give the baby life for their actions.1. Will you please talk about other women that have unplanned pregnancies. I am sure that teenage pregnancies do not add up to the 3.35 million unplanned pregnancies.2. We are always told to face the consequences of our actions, and that seems to be your route. But, realize that getting an abortion IS facing the conequences of our actions. It may not be the route that "Pro-Lifers" want, but it isn't anyone's choice but the mothers.We cannot force the mother to keep the baby solely becaue she consented to having sex. Why would you force them to keep the baby if they used contraceptives, like the other 62% of women in the US, to prevent the baby? It is clear that they are using contraceptives for either STDs or baby prevention. This would be like if someone knocked on your door and gave you their child. You didn't consent to the child, but it was given to you, so let's force you to deal with it for nine months or so.My opponent argued that Euthanasia was acceptable but stands that Abortion is not.See, this is relevant. If life was that important, why would you end it, even if it looked more appealing. By this, you find it more acceptable to kill someone that has developed, but you would rather save the fetus. And why? Because of pain? Because the woman doesn't feel pain in the nine months that she is pregnant? So we can directly take the pain from someone's life by killing them, but we cannot directly take the pain out of the other's by terminating the pregnancy?Opponent argues that we can kill things with less value than us.I'm assuming, by us, you mean humans? If so, I don't want to be valued with the unruly authoritarians our past has experienced. If you want to talk value, let us talk value. Let us take the value from the woman, her rights, and her body and give it to the developing, dependant body of the fetus. Without the woman, the fetus cannot live, not the other way around. So, it would be logical to say that the woman holds more value than the fetus. At least in relation to the fetus.