Abortion

"The method for abortion was made for abortion. Without it, there would be no abortion." I'm not sure I follow, what point are you trying to make here, because if it that we should limit the supply, ergo the demand of abortions, I fully agree with you. "Why not promote cannibalism then?" Because it is wrong, just like the murder of the prenatal child. You wouldn't murder a newborn. "Most humans do not exist for your benefit. Kill them all." No, because in every human exists the potential for greatness, the potential to contribute something amazing to society. In every human, there are complex processes of emotion and skill. In every foetus is the genetic tapestry for an amazing iteration of man. The next Issac Newton, the Elon Musk of the future, the Da Vinci of tomorrow and for you to estimate a human with so much potential as worthless purely because he is not yet independent of his mother is sickening. "Abortion is necessary as it is pre-determined that the foetus will not benefit the family." I don't think you fully grasp the concept of bringing new life into the world. What it means to have new ways of thinking, what it is to welcome another living, breathing human being. I think you underestimate the fact that a foetus is more than just a collection of cells. You are also a collection of cells, why shouldn't I kill you? Because I respect your potential and your right as an individual. I also respect the right of the prenatal individual at whatever stage in pregnancy he or she may exist. Being able to father children is an amazing gift. It is more than the replication of DNA, it is the very act of creation. "That function serves no purpose for us. If the child isn't helpful, why does it live?" When you were a foetus, you performed the function. I'm sure you contribute a lot to society. When my doctor was a foetus, he performed his function and now that he has left the womb and developed even more outside of the body, he heals the sick, saving countless lives. The same goes for the police officer, the fireman, the binman. Just because you don't perform a useful function doesn't mean you won't. You certainly shouldn't be killed before you have the chance to. "You continue on to say that a sperm and an ovum are unique cells, and we are unique. Yet you forget that many animals reproduce sexually as well." I didn't claim that gametes are unique, I pointed out the fact that the survival chances of gametes and the exact connection needed to make you exactly as you exist now are very slim. It is true that the majority of animals produce sexually, but you cannot compare human mating practices to that of animals. We are very different in that respect. For instance, female spiders eat male sexual partners for nutrition. Apes have no concept of monogamous fidelity. You cannot set the standards of the species that walked on the moon to the species that rests next to your Yorkshire puddings. "Also, we have more of a potential of harming this world than achieving so called greatness." Really, in comparison to animals? Can you point out the species which painted the Mona Lisa? Or the species that discovered electricity? The fact of the matter is. Humans are very different from animals, and yes, whilst we can be classified into certain groups, we far outmatch any other in those groups based purely on our mental faculty. "..and we are proving harmful for everyone but our own species." Says the person advocating for the practice of killing your offspring before they have a chance to leave the uterus. In the game of life, some win and some lose but we should all have an opportunity, whether we are ants, tigers, prenatal humans or a pensioner. Opportunity to shine and flourish. To develop skills and technology. To form relationships, societies, governments. To change the landscape of the world. That is a power that was won by humans, that is a power that we must grant the opportunity of every life form, born or not, to seize. "Where's your source? Ted talks are usually more expressing of opinions than facts." You have the guts to ask me for sources when you haven't put forth a single one? How dare you. I mentioned that it is a secondary source meaning you can watch the talk and the citation will be present somewhere during it. "It could be possible the parents at first wanted the child but later the situation changed and they didn't want it." Well, tough, they made the decision, they live with the potential consequences. "As for adoption, all parents feel a certain kinship to their own blood, and would feel distressed to send their own child down such a hard part." But they wouldn't feel 'distressed' to cause their child to die before it had seen the unfiltered light of day? You have a strange logic, my friend. That a child born is somehow more valuable than a child unborn. "Who knows whether anyone would adopt the child or not? What if he dies anyway?" Who knows whether the murdered child would have become the next Shakespeare, what if he would have become the next Winston Churchill? What if he'd have found the cure to cancer? What if he'd have solved the mysteries of dark matter? "Might as well, I don't think there was such a high probability of him being a genius. Not every child turns into a genius, you know. He didn't even make any inventions but just gave some theories. If he is later proved wrong, wouldn't your argument fall? What if it had some sort of contagious disease? Then you are eliminating a threat to society." Are you hearing this ladies and gentlemen? One of the greatest cosmologists of our time should have been killed because of his disability. You really are Hitler reincarnate, aren't you? You see nothing more than the superficial "value" of people and are willing to kill based upon characteristics that are uncontrollable. How sick. "Yet when they fail to be valuable, they must be killed. It works the opposite way for humans, does it not? Kill the baby if you don't need it. Let it live if you need it." Absolutely not! The first duty of a parent is to protect and provide for his or her children. The child isn't some possession, he is merely in the custody of his parents until such a time as he reaches maturity. Similar to how a prenatal child is merely in the custody of his mother's womb until such a time as he is able to leave her womb. If a mother neglects a postnatal child, she has committed an offence under every sane legal system that exists. Why then, if she neglects a prenatal child is she not? Imagine my opponent stating that his three-year-old child was of "no value" to him and he was going to have him killed. The physical custody of a womb is no different to the abstract custody of postnatal parenthood. "There are some eggs that have a faster expiry date than other due to being [fertilised]. Day 1, 2, and 3 eggs are still sold in some markets. You just killed a potential life for your own pleasure/food." No, I haven't. In the majority of cases, eggs next to my bangers are unfertilised. The goal of farming eggs is not to prevent the life of a chicken but to feed humans. The goal of abortion is simply to kill as to alleviate a 'burden' which could equally be alleviated by adoption. "If the real parents just see the child suffering again, they would feel extremely bad that the doomed it to this fate." And yet they wouldn't feel bad for the dismembered foetus? They wouldn't feel bad for the fact that they have prevented the fate of someone they were supposed to nurture and protect? "'Freedom is the right of all sentient beings' [Prime] sentient- able to see, hear, taste, smell, feel" By your logic, a newborn, who isn't able to see until his second day is not entitled to freedom. Neither is the blind man, or the deaf man, or the man with nerve damage who cannot feel. A heart starts beating at 4 weeks after conception, it doesn't stop until death, be that because someone has forcibily brought it about or after a long life.