Abortion

Abortion is "murder"I don't really feel like repeating myself for the hundredth time on certain points."Besides, there are milions of sperm cells."And therefore it's okay to kill them, because there are millions of them? I sure hope Con never finds out how many people are populating the world or we may just have a serial killer on our hands."Who said we were giving it more rights? Life is the most basic right anyone can think of!"Yes, and you are trying to grant the fetus a right to live that transends the mother's right to live by forcing the mother to give birth which can potentially kill her. You are, for some ludicrous reason (and I don't use that word very often), prioritizing the future human being over the current human being."Fine. But in return you must use your terminology correct too. Definition of "parasite" [...]"I grant you completed my challenge of finding a definition to suit your stance, but I still do trust biology.com over dictionary.com when it comes to biology-related terms. What's ironic, though, is that the second definition of "parasite" of dictionary.com would apply to a fetus if a fetus should be considered a human being: "a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others"."Excatly. By doing this, you are eliminating it's purpose to become a human. You are ending the possibility of a new, unique, human being."It's amazing that throughout this entire debate you have only defined the word "abortion" as if the definition is an argument itself. You have yet to validly explain why this should be frowned upon, and I think you are only making sense to the already-convinced.She just shouldn't have gotten pregnantMy opponent continued to drop my arguments of failed contraceptives and rape. Extend arguments and refutations.It's not the whatever-it-is' fault"So would you rather have 10000 people survive or 1 person?"I'm not saying every pregnant woman should have an abortion. I'm saying that if a woman considers the risks to her health and wants to have an abortion, one should be medically available to her and it should not be considered morally wrong.It can feel pain"So where is this "study"? You provide no source or details."I want to say this in such a way that won't embarrass you, but I'm not sure that's possible so I'll just say it: I was quoting the study you yourself referenced. It was your own argument and I'm not sure how you didn't recognize it."I concede that an abortion is less painful than childbirth."Then this entire argument about avoidance of pain is in favor of pro-choice, not pro-life.A human is good for the economyStill ignored. Extend arguments and refutations.It's a woman's purposePosing new arguments in the final round is discouraged, but I will refute it anyway since it is probably your weakest one yet. "It is the mother's niche to bear fetuses."You argue that because we have evolved a certain way, or because our body is naturally designed to do a particular thing, we should not be allowed to go against it. In other words, behaviors and actions which go against our primitive natures should not be granted.I must say, this is the silliest argument for pro-life I've encountered. Wisdom teeth are naturally designed to chew food, so should we not be allowed to remove them? Fingernails are naturally designed to claw at predators and prey, so should we not be allowed to cut them? It is utterly ridiculous to say something is immoral because it goes against the flow of our ancestors' evolution."You can't just let go of your role."Fortunately, you can."If trees decided that they did not want to be trees, then the world would be in chaos."If trees decid... are you serious? I will ignore, for the moment, that trees are incapable of any kind of thought processes. Are you suggesting Hellfire would rain from the cosmos if trees decided they didn't want to be trees, eh? Well, maybe chaos is a good thing then. It's at least better than conformity, subservience, and oppression.My opponent's rebuttal"A fetus is not a human.Life is a human right. Therefore, it is amoral to kill a fetus.My rebuttal to it is that a fetus becomes a future human."Unfortunately, your rebuttal does not attempt to negate the truth of either premise or render the conclusion invalid. Therefore, the argument stands.My opponent's sourcesBoth my opponent and I have dared you to view abortionfacts.com, so curiousity will inevitably be your downfall. By viewing it, you will see that this source is worth at least negative ten points, so I will humbly accept your "reliable sources" vote along with your "convincing arguments" vote.16kadams (in the comments section): "So their now suddenly pro life religious zealots? How?!"Since he has apparently taken upon himself to be Con's defense attorney in the trial of his sources' credibility (probably because he's the one who gave them to him), he has postulated the implication that abortionfacts.com is, in fact, not religiously motivated. To allay this objection, I merely ask you to look at the goddamn site and notice the sidebar has a "Abortion and the Bible" section.Case closed. My opponent has not provided a single argument against abortion that could survive even minute scrutiny (and some of his arguments were even easily turned around to be in support of pro-choice). In conclusion, vote Pro or vote for the oppression of human rights.