Abortion cannot be justified logically.

Well, thanks for the explanation for privatization, though I can't say I agree with it. "Wow. I don't think I've ever had my words twisted worse than you just did. When did I give that definition of human life? I was defining LIFE." Half of the purpose of a debate is to twist your opponent's words. Nothing personal, I'm just proving that your definition can also be used to argue that we shouldn't kill tumors. If you don't want me to twist your words, you have to come up with a way of explaining something that doesn't violate facts and can‘t be proved to be somewhat ridiculous. And as for defining ‘LIFE'? You were defining life in humans. Human life. So your new definition of human life is working cells that multiply and whatnot and have human DNA. So naturally I have to go back to the subject of tumors. Tumors are perfectly human. They have human DNA. The only problem with the cells in a tumor is that they stop doing whatever job they were supposed to be doing and multiply like mad. They're still human cells. Isolate some DNA and you can probably clone somebody from a tumor. Of course, tumors are a fairly drastic example. By your definition, skin and organs are also human life. Tumors are just fun because they point out how vague your definition of life is. So, I stand by my assertion that a fetus is about as alive as the average tumor, and if abortion is murder, so's chemotherapy. And I love how you conveniently forgot to mention the medical definition of life. From a medical standpoint, fetuses are not alive. End of story. They can't breathe, they don't have brain function and they can't circulate blood. Any one of the three constitutes death, having all of them just makes them triply so. "No, I don't know that there are different levels of "alive"." Well, right now, the only problem we seem to be having is with the difference between being scientifically alive and medically alive. Your definition of alive is to have working cell function and cell division, and contain human DNA. Let me say again and hopefully for the last time, that by your definition any tissue in the human body is alive, and by your logic, should not be killed because of this. Just because tissues aren't ‘conscious and thinking' doesn't mean killing them isn't murder. "I'm not basing my arguments purely on emotion." Okay. I'm sorry. You're not basing all your arguments on emotion, but you are basing them all on the assumption that fetuses are alive, which requires quite a bit of emotion to actually believe. And you're citing a website called AbortionNO.org. It's got quotes from scripture on one of the pages and a picture of an aborted fetus on the homepage. Do you really think it's a good source for unbiased facts? And its already somewhat dubious statistics are from 1996 anyway. I got mine from a government survey. "So, in other words, you don't agree with abortion? What are we debating about then?" I'm not a big fan of killing cattle either, but I'm still not going to turn down that burger. In a perfectly ideal world, there would not have to be abortions. But the world is not perfect and I'd take my rights over empathizing with a lump of cells any day. What I'm saying is that I agree with it, but I'm not exactly sadistic enough to enjoy it. And we're debating about it because you brought it up, actually. And I took it because I agree with a woman's right to choose and I thought it would be interesting to argue it. And for that matter, if I didn't agree with it, who are you to say I can't play devil's advocate? "There aren't more adoptions because adopting couples typically want to adopt infants, not the type of kids you described who bounce from one foster home to another." And those kids were once… what now? Infants. Some infants get adopted. Most get bounced around foster homes, until they are the type of kids I described. Funny thing about infants, they grow up pretty fast, and after a year or two, interest in adopting them drops sharply. There's simply not enough demand for adopted children. Of adoptable children right now, something like 4% actually get homes. (Want proof? http://www.ipt-forensics.com...) If 96% are left behind, I can promise you there are plenty of infants. Look at that figure and then compare it to yours. If I suspend disbelief and assume your figure of over 3,000 abortions a day is true, then we assume that each not-aborted fetus is carried to term. That's 3,000 kids a day, right? Good. Now those 3,000 kids a day get sent to the country's orphanages or whatever they're called nowadays. If right now, 4% of the amount already there are being adopted, and we add 1,095,000 more homeless kids a year, how many do you really think are ever going to find homes? It's extremely unrealistic, don't you agree? "This is called a bandwagon fallacy. You're saying that it's okay to have recreational sex because everyone is doing it. Just because everyone is doing something doesn't make it right." Depending on just how many people are doing something, sometimes the fact that everyone is doing it does make it right. Again, recreational sex is pretty deeply ingrained in our culture now, whether you like it or not. I mean, without the sexual overtones in practically everything we, as a nation, consume, our major corporations would lose a huge amount of money. By not outlawing something, you can only assume the government is condoning it, especially with it so blatantly shoved in our faces through television and advertising. And if it's right by the government, than the only real issue is morals, which of course differ from person to person. In your opinion it might not be right, but thanks to the joys of our government, you can't govern others' actions because of your opinion. "When did I ever say that this debate wouldn't do anything?" Uh… Right here: "The whole problem of abortion could be solved, not by legislation, not by debates like this, but by people not acting like children are just a biproduct of sex." I'd put some emphasis on "not by debates like this" but the darn editor doesn't allow html. "People still murder despite the fact that we have laws against it. Does that mean we should legalize murder? Of course not. That is one of the most fallacious arguments I have ever heard." It's a bit defeatist to look at this way (if you're ‘pro-life', that is) but if you know fully well that outlawing something isn't going to stop it, you might as well make it safe. It was just a point I threw in for the sake of argument. It's a bit like prohibition. We didn't like the idea of people getting drunk, but since they were doing it no matter what, and doing so dangerously and it was leading to other illegal and potentially dangerous things, we legalized alcohol and regulated it. Sometimes you can't get what you want, so you have to settle for causing the least damage.