Abortion is morally permissible, even if the pregnancy would pose no threat to the mother's life.

Rebuttal 1" Let's suppose the fetus is not a person. Why would that give us the right to kill it? I see no logical connection here. "If the fetus is not a person, you would have to then classify what it actually is. It can be construed as a parasite by some because of how it leeches of the nutrients of the mother. This is not the full case, and just an example but we would still have to classify it. If it is just an embryo with no feelings, thoughts, or conscious it would be the same as cracking open a egg. At that point we would conclude that it is not a life, but has the possibility to become a life. The possibility to become a life, is not a life within itself. It just bears potential. Rebuttal 2" Sometimes you do have to choose between one person's life or another. If you choose not to save the mother, you may as well be killing her. In this case, you kill somebody regardless, either directly (abortion) or indirectly (inaction)."I think you missed the point I was trying to make. If this where the case, then you would have to value one life over the other. Hypothetically if your logic is correct, and we act under that logic you have committed murder either way. If you then operate under the pretense that murder of a fetus is objectivity wrong, you have countered yourself. If you then admit that morality in that situation is directly relevant to the issue at hand, then you concede to my argument. Either way you are stuck. Rebuttal 3" Your cited article ( http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org...... ) blatantly states, "Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue." It then goes on to use logical fallacies to justify the pro-choice stance."Most of these issues will state that it is a woman's right to her own body, and with the fetus not being considered a life it is her choice to chose. Much more in depth but that is the basics of every argument you will see. It goes on to say that theology have no reason to dictate and control that choice, because it is an ethical option until the fetus can be shown to be a human being. Other wise you are not committing murder. You then say"The section dealing with fetuses and legal rights uses a slippery slope fallacy. Giving them the right to life doesn't mean we have to assign them a social security number, name or certificate of any sort before they are born. It just means you're not allowed to kill them."It goes way more in depth that just that. It is more than just giving them a social security number, but defining what life actually is. As i state it would be have sense, conscious, breathe, feel pain , etc. Just because something has the potential to bear these in the future, does not make it a life. If you used that line of logic, anything could be labeled as a human because it is alive. What makes a human a human and when does it become so? Even some pro choice people say by the third tri-mester it has met the requirements of what we consider life or a human. Anything prior to that would still be justifiable however. Your stance is that it is wrong in all situations other than one that can cause death. Let me break it downFor you to say the fetus is a living human, you would have to do one of the two.(1) Show that it is alive from the moment of the conception. Like the moment sperm is released and goes on to form the egg it would be considered a living human. You would have to show this sciteificaly and provide facts to support it which you have not doneor (2) You would have to show at what point it becomes an actual human and is considered to be alive. At this point, you would then have to accept in abortion prior to that point is morally acceptable. Which you have not done either leaving your BOP unfulfilled. If you want to use basic logic, you lose either way. If you admit to the first, you will soon realize this is impossible to prove. If you admit to the second you concede that you are wrong, because abortion prior to when it develops would be justified. Rebuttal 4"There is physically no way that anybody can prove the morality/immorality of abortion in every possible scenario, because we don't have access to every possible scenario. We must make do on what we have available."Agreed but again you lose by saying this, because of your stance. Even if you were to go with this argument, you would have to consider every possible situation in which an abortion has occurred and show it was morally incorrect. If even one of those situations would be deemed as necessary, your resolution has not been metIn closingMy adversary has claimed something that is impossible to prove. He claims that abortion in every circumstance that can cause death to a mother is morally wrong. This is impossible to back with facts and show as truth. Thus he has not met his BOP.Bear in mind I am not for or against abortion. I am undecided. I just wanted to show how illogical his stance is.