Abortions has scientific benefits and should be legal.

"Researches are coming out now that prove an stem cells can be extracted and the embryo would be safe." This means we can access all of your scientific advantages without aborting the child. So, why should we have abortion? We can save all of these lives and get all of your stem cell benefits without abortion. "then we could simpily keep the embryo and the baby could ultimately still born" So, we don't have abortion then. So, despite the fact that you agreed with me throughout the debate on whether or not the fetus is a life, we have this definition now that you claim proves us both wrong. " a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth" So, a fetus is a person two months after conception. So, this definition means that abortions after two months are rights violations because fetus' are people by definition. Again, as you pointed out. If we look at the definition of embryo "the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception". Based on the definitions we have each provided, fetus and embryos are people. Thus, abortion is a rights violation as you are killing a person by its very definition. Also, to deny that a fetus is a child is to deny any kind of rational forethought, as I stated earlier. This point goes unanswered throoughout the debate. Finally, you agree with me! " I am in no way denying life of a fetus." -blacknite Medical emergencies are defined by the legislation before Roe v. Wade. This isn't a new idea. Now, we get to the idea of babies with birth defects. "Would you be happy if you couldnt function in society, because you had down syndrome". So, you are saying that since they wouldn't be normal people, we should abort them and harvest their scientific resources. This is like saying "We should kill handicapped people and harvest their organs because they aren't functional members of society anyway." Thats pretty messed up. I think handicapped people and people with birth defects have just as much a right to live as you and I do. Next, you say that premature babies or babies with drug addiction or something similar are going to die anyway, so we should harvest them. Well, the eldery are also going to die relatively soon. So, since they are inconvenient to take care of, I vote we execute them. They are going to ultimately die anyway. How messed up is that logic? I think the child should at least have a shot. Your argument is that babies who aren't fully functional or have a large chance of dying should be killed and harvested for scientific research. This is possibly the most terrible logic ever. I think everyone has the right to live, regardless of their health being poor. You essentially have two arguments. First, you claim that scientific resources from fetus should be harvested in order to save lives. This is unnecessary as you pointed out. We can harvested these resources without terminating the embryo. Even if this isn't the case, killing an unconsenting person in order to save others is illegitimate (see my hospital example from the first round that goes unanswered). Second, mothers have a pretty good reason to abort, so they should be allowed to. We agreed that fetus are people. Then, you changed your mind so I proved it by definition. Since fetus are people, killing them is a rights violation. One of our fundamental constitutional principles is that our actions can't infringe on the rights of others. Abortion is a glaring example of this. So, not only do we have no reason to abort, the scientific resources are not a legitimate reason to warrant killing someone. A woman should have control over her body, but not when that control infringes on the rights of someone else, especially to the degree of taking a life. Abortion has no legitimate benefits and is unconstitutional.