Abortion is wrong

Before I get into rebutting Pro's points, I would like to point out that his thesis is a moral absolute, which really isn't very provable. I would put a situation in which abortion would fail to be "wrong", and if it calls to question his absolute statement then there really isn't any reason to keep debating the finer points of the argument. 1) The health of the mother is at stake. It is determined by doctors that the mother will die if the fetus is carried to term. This would cause a massive tragedy in the lives of the mother, father, and everyone these people know. The damage sustained by this group of people would be unjustifiable, as the mother could very well just adopt or try again to conceive under better consequences. Is this "wrong"? By whose standards? "First, I would like to point out that I am the pro, not the con. Address me a such." I'll tell you what. If you agree to clean up your grammar and re-read your arguments before you post, I'll agree to be more thorough on how I address you. "So that paragraph is really irrelevant to this debate..." Fair enough, abortion is usually a legal debate but the law need not play into a strict argument about whether it is morally wrong. I won't mention law in the next two rounds. "Many of us would agree that killing is morally wrong." No, many of us wouldn't. I can think of plenty of times when killing isn't morally wrong. Washing your hands kills thousands if not millions of germs, and there isn't anything immoral about killing them. Furthermore, killing people is justifiable in self defense. "So my argument is that an abortion is killing a human." It depends on the terminology used. Most pro-choicers use the word "potential human", although I prefer to call the fetus a "potential person", since its DNA is obviously human. So I will give you the ability to use that statement in this argument. My argument will be based on the fact that a fetus is not a person, because although it has human DNA, there just isn't enough of the organism present to be able to undergo the human experience that makes us people. Now I would urge Pro to please address my question of "what makes you a person?" that I posed in round 2. This rhetorical question is designed to prompt Pro into letting us know what values make him who he is, and any of those values that have any worth whatsoever are not going to be present in the fetus at all. So, Pro, since I have faithfully answered all of your questions, please answer mine. "Do you think that newborns are human?" Yes. To save us all time, let's jump ahead to your real point. What's the difference between a newborn and a fetus? Well, the differences are that the mother has accepted the responsibility of taking that child into this world and raising it. Children DON'T RAISE THEMSELVES, so unless the mother makes that commitment, the fetus has no right to compel others to raise it. If the fetus is born and turns into a child, then I would argue it has achieved enough of its life that it should be helped by any and all that can help it, through foster care or what have you, but no one can compel another person to biologically raise a fetus into childhood. The newborn baby cries (demonstrating a fear of death, pleasure and pain, personality, {although this in and of itself does not encompass all of these concepts, it does at least show some evidence for them}) and interacts with others, which marks the beginning of its life as a person. If one person is suffering, another should help. If a fetus is suffering, its life is still in the hands of the mother, and I wouldn't hold any other person accountable if they chose not to assist a fetus as this opens up a slippery slope argument that is quite ridiculous: Fetus' rights. If the fetus is a person, then it has all the rights a person has. If a mother does anything that may potentially harm her fetus, even if it is one day old in the womb, then the fetus must be protected by law. This is absurd. The really absurd thing is that there would likely be people willing to push for these laws, as well, as is demonstrated by protesters holding signs of dead fetuses. "The unfortunate fact the women or blacks had really no rights was very sad. But this was a misconception." I can't understand your bad grammar, but you must be referring to the "All men are created equal" argument. Your next and final sentence in this paragraph is: "The reason why I said that was to point out that humans have certain rights, and as you know, my argument is a fetus is a human." OK, well your argument back-fired. Using the Dec of Ind to support fetus' rights was not a good idea. I would drop it now before you dig any deeper of a hole (hint-hint). "Rob1billion, why would you not have an abortion yourself?" My intention was not to say that would NEVER get an abortion under any circumstance, my statement was to say that my pro-choice status does not depend on me wanting to get an abortion. "I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I'm out shopping for abortions, or that I would ever even consider getting them myself." It is ambiguously worded, however, that one may make that assumption based on it, so I will take the blame for the miscommunication in this case. My answer to your question is that my decision to get an abortion is really irrelevant, because if I got some woman pregnant it would be her choice, not mine. If I did decide that an abortion was in our best interests, and I chose to convince her of that, it would be after undergoing a thorough ethical analysis of the situation in which I decided that the fetus' development and birth could cause more strife than good, and that I could create a much better environment for another potential child of mine in a better situation in some other time.