Abortion is injustice and morally wrong,

REBUTTALS I noticed how Con provided no sources for back up or definitions whatsoever, but alas, I will take what I've been given and debate his case anyways. After "googling" the meaning of 'murder,' I figured my opponent got his definition from dictionary.com. Going into specifics we can say that murder is "...the killing of another human being under conditions covered in law" and we can say that it is generally committed with "...malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation..." I would rather not argue about the meanings or words all day so, Con, would you be alright with me switching the word 'murder' to 'kill'? Also, I am not trying to avoid any discussion, but remember that my resolutions for this debate is that "Abortion is injustice and morally wrong." I stated that abortion is murder/killing, but that is not what we are mainly debating about though it is apropos. My opponent: "Do you believe that those who do abortions do it with malice?" No, I believe that it is ignorance due to the pregnant woman being fooled into believing abortion is NOT killing. MOST women--I believe--are innocent because of ignorance or simple trickery. My opponent: "Is it currently lawful?" Well, you haven't answered by question from R2, which is this: "if something is legal is it also considered (from your stand point) truth and/or morality?" Your case for morality is well written, says me. However, it is irrelevant to the case of abortion being morally wrong. Is killing/murder of innocent human beings considered morally wrong universally, just with some people at some times? (Disregard cannibals please.) Objective morality is the assumed topic we are arguing here, agreed? Con writes: "My opponent fails to realize the amount of kids who weren't aborted yet either die or kill the birth parent due to poor conditions, long ago birth killed 1 out of 1.5 mothers." I don't want to argue the morality in human rights, but let me ask you: is giving someone a whole new lifetime more important than giving someone else a few more years to live? Oh yes and I also fail to realize how anyone can say aborting babies before they are even born into the world is better than letting them live for a given amount of time. Another thing about human rights is the fact that the definition of a "human" is controversial between us. Some, like my opponent, think that they aren't "humans" until they are born or whatever, thus they believe they don't have any say in their life! Prove me wrong, Con, but is that so unfair and unjust that it's not exactly pro-choice for the baby's life?! We need to focus on definitions rather than "objective morality" because of the above controversy of when a baby/fetus becomes a real human. Con states: "...Unless she condemns these people as being totally immoral then we can conclude that abortion has a moral stance around the world." It is not a matter of the people who are immoral, I am merely saying that the act of abortion is killing therefore immoral. Because the majority of America believes abortion is not killing mankind, they believe it is moral and that it SHOULD be legal. Which brings me back to the first question I ever asked Con in this debate. Just because something is legal doesn't automatically define it as moral. My opponent: "This part of my opponent"s argument contradicts itself later for it implies one does not have the right to their privacy and choices against another human being." Please explain yourself, Con, I am confused by your means--and what you are trying to prove. I will now reinforce my statement that a fetus or baby is not a part of a woman's body. "...it more or less resembles a parasite for it feeds and weakens the mother throughout its growth without the mothers consent." My opponent, writing about the baby inside the womb, says that it is "without the mothers consent" but how can this be when she obviously had irresponsible and unprotected sex? The man and the woman are intended to have sex for reproduction, hopefully everybody knows that. Mankind, as well as most types of animals, regenerate and produce more offspring by intercourse and always through the female. Why baby whales protected more than baby humans, I do not know, but to me it explains further how abortion is morally wrong and injustice towards human life. My opponent: "Like any negative effect on one"s body, one has the right for it being removed; this argument is like forcing someone to accept a cancer and to not have it removed for it is part of one"s body." Readers, can a fetus be compared to a cancer?? I am a female. I believe that bearing a new life (baby) inside me is a privilege that should be protected, and yes it may hurt physically at times, but once the baby is born it is free from the womb. When it is inside the womb it is an individual even though he may not be free in the world, and I know that he will become a human just like you and me. "Isn't attacking/denying the choice also interfering with personal choice, the government concluded it being the choice of the mother due to her having the rights to her personal life, no one has a right to intervene in her personal affairs." Oh, and I suppose it is totally moral, just and legal for the mother to murder her 5 year old child too, because after all, the child is still her property, right? Once Con can prove that a baby is not an individual person, we will talk, but so far he has not proven that nor that an argument showing that the government interfering with personal issues is a valid case. I don't know why the concept of personal life as a baby is so hard to grasp, except that a baby isn't able to fight for itself therefore doesn't have "rights." Explain that, Con. My opponent tries to make it sound like the awful statistics for Foster Care and adoption for children in the world and U.S. is MORE awful that it would be for the parents of all those kids to simply have them be aborted. The fault in that is most likely objective morality and common sense, am I wrong? Con: "Irrelevant: abortion was not defined by law as being only for last resort" Many pro-choice-ers make a case for "all the rapes and incest that the mother was forced to bear a child. I was merely explaining why the argument is wrong by presenting statistics saying that an estimated about 1% of women who get abortions are a result of rape or other dangers. Con: "Irrelevant: section goes off topic and does not support either abortion being an injustice or it being immoral." How is it off topic? A large number of babies are aborted because they are disabled. This is injustice towards the disabled. CONCLUSION AND NOTES I did not mean to insult you, Con. We are debating abortion here, and if you aren't a woman you shouldn't be insulted. ;) Sorry if you are. You accuse me of giving sources to some of my arguments, whereas you gave none. Because my opponent has not explained his position as to why everything that is legal is not an injustice, my case stands. We will continue debating morality; I hope that I cleared things up on definitions this round (even though it is quite impossible to do that with each of our beliefs). Wait, hold it, miscarriage is abortion???!! Since when are they the same? Thank you for participating. I look forward to the next round.