BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A fetus is no more a human than an acorn is a tree

Judith Jarvis Thomson. "A Defense of Abortion". Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971). - "Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception. The premise is argued for, but, as I think, not well. Take, for example, the most common argument. We are asked to notice that the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to choose a point in this development and say "before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person" is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the nature of things no good reason can be given. It is concluded that the fetus is or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak trees, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are...A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree."
Support can be given to women who can't support a child

Ronald Reagan, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", Human Life Review, Spring 1984. - "As we continue to work to overturn Roe v. Wade, we must also continue to lay the groundwork for a society in which abortion is not the accepted answer to unwanted pregnancy. Pro-life people have already taken heroic steps, often at great personal sacrifice, to provide for unwed mothers."[23]
A fetus is not a "person" so can't have rights protecting it from abortion:

Is terminating a fetus, which can neither feel emotions nor be conscious of its own "existence," really be considered equivalent to killing a "person?" Some define personhood (qualifying for rights) through a set of criteria. A being need not exhibit every criterion to qualify as a person, but failure to exhibit most is proposed as disqualification. One list includes consciousness (at least the capacity to feel pain), reasoning, self motivation, the ability to communicate on many possible topics, and self-awareness. Lists like this are intended to help someone be able to objectively distinguish between a biological human and a person. An embryo is not a person because it satisfies only one criterion, namely consciousness (and this only after it becomes susceptible to pain). Other sets of criteria conclude that an embryo lacks personhood (and a right to life) because it lacks self-consciousness, rationality, and autonomy. These lists diverge over precisely which features confer a right to life, but tend to propose that they are developed psychological features not found in embryos.
Doctors that have difficulty performing abortions still acknowledge its importance.

Many people have trouble with parts of their profession. A general, for instance, has trouble sending his troops to their death, but typically acknowledges the need for this to occur in certain instance. Abortion doctors, similarly, might be challenged by the process of an abortion (and even believe that they are "killing" the fetus), but nevertheless acknowledge the need for abortions and so are comfortable with their profession. The difficulty doctors experience in performing abortions, therefore, is not an argument against abortions.
Abortion is not a just response to social problems facing the unborn

If a child is likely to face social difficulties, this is absolutely no reason to seek an abortion. The notion that a child will be unhappy due to these conditions or will have no chances of success is ludicrous. It is easy to find examples of poor and neglected children that have grown up to become thriving, successful, and happy adults. In any case, if social problems are the concern, these problems should be addressed; abortion is a terrible band-aid. Saying that a child would encounter social problems during his or her development is not the same as saying that he or she is better off dead.
Legal abortions safer than black market abortions

Mary Calderone, founder of SIECUS and medical director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, "Illegal abortion as a public health problem," American Journal of Public Health, July 1960 - "90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; . . . They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is . . . Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians."[10]
Potential of fetus to become a person is not sufficient

Ayn Rand - "Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a 'right to life.' A piece of protoplasm has no rights -— and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable."
Human life and a right to life begin at conception; abortion is murder

Human life is continuum of growth that starts at conception, not at birth. The DNA that makes a person who they are is first mixed at conception upon the male sperm entering the female egg. This is when the genetic building blocks of a person are "conceived" and built upon. The person, therefore, begins at conception. Killing the fetus, thus, destroys a growing person and can be considered murder. Ronald Reagan, quoted in the New York Times on September 22,1980 "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."
Life is an individual right, not a privilege, for unborn humans

Mother Teresa, in her amicus brief filed before the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases of Loce v. New Jersey and Krail et al. v. New Jersey in February 1994 - "Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or sovereign... you must weep that your own government, at present, seems blind to this truth."[1]
If abortion in self-defense is OK, a fetus cannot have a general right to life

Opponents of abortion often argue that a fetus has an inviolable right to life. Yet, it is easy to demonstrate that this is not the case. It is always permissible to take a life in self-defense. This principle can be applied to abortion. And, importantly, it also demonstrates that there is no such thing as an "inviolable right to life". There are always conditional exceptions. So, if we can show that the conditions are appropriate (even beyond self-defense), an abortion can be justified, even if it is "killing".
Abortions are emotionally and psychologically unsafe.

If by 'safe' you mean that a woman can survive, then the answer is possibly. A woman can have even multiple abortions and live through each. But if by 'safe' you mean that she will experience no physical, emotional, or psychological harm, then the answer is no. She will spend the rest of her life dealing with the myriad of consequences of the abortion by constantly shoving the rattling skeletons back into the closet. And will daily seek expiation, or seek to justify herself. In any case, none of these leaves a woman 'safe'.
A fetus is uniquely capable of becoming a person; deserves rights

It is unquestionable that the fetus, at whatever stage of development, will inevitably develop the traits of a full-grown human person. It will also inevitably accumulate all of the rights that you yourself have. If we deprive the unborn of life via abortions, however, they will be deprived of all of this potential and future rights. This is why extending a right to life is of utmost importance; the future of the unborn depends on it.
A child should not be killed to save a mother:

Whilst these are different circumstances, and such medical emergencies are tragic, it is by no means obvious that the abortion is to be performed. The ‘mother vs. child’ dilemma is one which defies solution, and aborting to preserve one of the lives sets a dangerous precedent that it is acceptable to kill a person in order to save another. This is a clear, and unpalatable, case of treating a human-being as a means to an end.
Abortion allows women to become better people without a child

Rachel Kramer Bussel, "I'm Pro-Choice and I Fuck", Village Voice, January 13, 2006 - "I'm pro-choice because I couldn't fully enjoy sex were I consumed with worry about the potential consequences. I'm pro-choice for all my friends who've had abortions and gone on to do great things, who are better women for being childless (for now). I'm pro-choice for the new moms and dads I know who were able to actively choose to become parents. I'm pro-choice for all those babies... born knowing they're 100 percent loved and wanted."[11]
No one argues that an acorn or even an animal fetus has a “sanctity” or rights.

No, human beings are in an entirely different class. We are called not to murder human life, not acorns. It's not the stage of development, it's the precious value of humans. Abortionists focus only on the early stage of development and ignore the specialness and reverence we should have for even a tiny (but growing) human life. A living, developing human fetus by definition IS a human life.
Wanted fetuses are beloved "babies"; unwanted ones are "tissue" (inconsistent)

Naomi Wolf, feminist author and advocate of legal abortion, in "Our Bodies, Our Souls", The New Republic (October 15, 1995) - "Wanted fetuses are charming, complex, REM-dreaming little beings whose profile on the sonogram looks just like Daddy, but unwanted ones are mere 'uterine material'?"[2]
Abortion is more likely to wipe out the bad than the good.

This argument is based on the premise that poverty and conditions conducive to crime often correlate to those that seek abortions. Stephen Levitt of Freakonomics makes this argument. He contends that the 1973 Roe. v. Wade legalization of abortions led to the fall in crime rates in the 80s and 90s across the United States. The period of declining crime, he says, correlated to the period when those that were aborted might have otherwise become criminals in society as a result of their circumstances.
Abortion advocates wrongly value "quality of life" over "sanctity of life"

Ronald Reagan, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", Human Life Review, Spring 1984 - "As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the 'quality of life' ethic. I have no trouble identifying the answer our nation has always given to this basic question, and the answer that I hope and pray it will give in the future."[13]
It is wrong to consider abortion a tool in crime prevention

Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt, from the essay Where Have All the Criminals Gone? Want to understand what made the crime rate drop in the 1990s? Look back to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 - "To discover that abortion was one of the greatest crime-lowering factors in American history is, needless to say, jarring. It feels less Darwinian than Swiftian; it calls to mind a long ago dart attributed to G. K. Chesterton: when there aren’t enough hats to go around, the problem isn’t solved by lopping off some heads. The crime drop was, in the language of economists, an 'unintended benefit' of legalized abortion. But one need not oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds to feel shaken by the notion of a private sadness being converted into a public good."[33]
Rape is an arbitrary exception; abortion must be available in all pregnancies.

Many opponents of abortion allow for abortion in instances of rape. But, this assigns rights arbitrarily to the unborn "bastard child" as compared to an ordinarily-conceived child. It confers lower rights on the unborn "bastard child". This is wrong. The solution, though, cannot be to ban abortions even in cases of rape. Instead, the solution is to legalize all forms of abortion.
Child-rearing is a beautiful, natural process, not a burden

Victoria Woodhull, first woman to run for U.S. President, member of the Equal Rights Party, in Woodhull's and Claffin's Weekly (September 23, 1871). - "Child-bearing is not a disease, but a beautiful office of nature. But to our faded-out, sickly, exhausted type of women, it is a fearful ordeal. Nearly every child born is an unwelcome guest. Abortion is the choice of evils for such women."[14]
Abortion prevents victims of rape from becoming unready mothers

| In cases where the rape victims cannot afford or is not ready to have a child, abortion can do both the victim and the unborn baby a favour. There are cases where school students are impregnated through rape. Pregnancy itself is a constant reminder of the sexual assault their underwent and might cause emotional instability, which will affect their studies, and subsequently their future. Moreover pregnancy might even affect the health and growth of the young girls. Besides, babies born to unready mothers are likely to be neglected or would not be able to enjoy what other children have, be it due to financial reasons or the unwillingness of the mothers to bring up the "unwanted children".
On abortion the issue is when love not life begins

Robert Casey, former Governor of Pennsylvania - "When we look to the unborn child, the real issue is not when life begins, but when love begins."[15] The point is, since we should be capable of loving a fetus (a human being in the making), we should subsequently provide that being with rights and protections. It matters not what we call the unborn child (a "baby", "human", "life"); as long as we love it, we should protect it. And, an attitude and life-style of love and acceptance is superior to an attitude and life-style of fear and regret.
Pro-abortionists dehumanize "fetuses" to get away with murder

Frederica Matthewes-Green, "Personhood of the Unborn", on National Public Radio's All Things Considered, (January 21, 1998) - "When we question whether someone is a person, it is because we want to kill him. We do this with our enemies in wartime, or with anyone we would like to enslave or exploit. Before we can feel comfortable treating others this way, we have to expel them from the human community. But there's just no logical reason to expel the unborn."[3]
A rape victim can put their baby up for adoption.

Why can't a rape victim put their child up for adoption? Isn't this an adequate resolution to the problem? The only reason it might not be an adequate resolution are the risks and pains of child-birth and perhaps the difficulty of separating from the child. But, these objections are easily dealt with. First, maintaining the life of a fetus is worth the pains and risks that it might cause the mother. Second, there is no difference in separating from an unborn child (abortion) as compared to a born child (adoption).
Having an abortion is just as wrong as the rape itself.

The child has a right to life just as much as that woman had the right to not be raped. Her rights were violated by the rapist. Aborting the child would be violating the child's right to life. I certainly feel deeply for anyone in such a position, but that doesn't mean I would sympathize with them enough to believe they have the right to then cause harm to another. A woman's body is required to produce life, therefore an unborn child has no other option then to rely on her, no matter the reason for conception. The rapist made a choice based on his own selfish feelings and beliefs in what he was entitled to, isn't that exactly what happens when we allow abortion as a "choice?"
Many women are disturbed by their abortions but remain pro-choice

Rosemary Candelario, director of Massachusetts Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, September 2001 - "I think the fear in the [abortion rights] movement is if we admit abortion is hard for some women, then we're admitting that it's wrong, which is totally not the case. I've heard from women who are having problems dealing with their abortion who are still ardently pro-choice."[16]
Even if abortions "kill life", it can be justified as upholding a woman's life

Even if a fetus is considered a "baby" or human life, abortions can still be justified. The "baby" is still not a citizen with rights, while it is in the womb. In this case, the woman's right to choose outweighs considerations of the life of the fetus. The life of the woman takes precedent over the life of the fetus. This is pro-life (pro-the-life-of-the-woman) and so respects the dignity of life.
The right to abort does not depend on its explicit constitutional provision

Sarah Weddington, the lawyer who argued Roe v. Wade, "A Delicate Decision", Westchester County Weekly, (January 22, 1998) - "The word 'privacy' does not appear in the Constitution. Then again, neither does 'travel.' But if you were to ask any American, 'Do you have the right to travel where and when you like?' they'd say 'yes.' And the Supreme Court has upheld this right."
Going to Mars is extremely dangerous compared to the Moon.

In 1999, a Mars orbiter, which is an unmanned craft designed to collect data, crashed down to the surface of Mars when trying to land. This error was made largely because of one minor error by the craft's engineers. [3] This spacecraft freefell to the surface of Mars where it crashed and exploded into pieces that now litter the Martian landscape. If only one error caused an unmanned craft to fail, resulting in the $125 million craft being lost, a manned mission would appear to be unsafe. If we allowed any actual human beings go to Mars, the human error possibilities are multiplied by many factors.
Mars can be terraformed, while Moon cannot

"First step in terraforming Mars." On to Mars: "When we compare our moon to Mars, we see that Mars is much easier to terraform then the Moon. The moon's 28 day day-night cycle is unsupportable for plants and isn't comfortable for humans either. Plant growth on a greenhouse on the moon wouldn't be possible either: solar radiation would destroy them and if the greenhouse was made to shield the solar radiation ( a very thick greenhouse ), the temperature differences would kill the plants: Much too hot during day-time, much too cold during the night."
Long weightless travel to Mars would weaken Astronauts

"Astronauts face bone danger." BBC. May 4, 2000: "Astronauts returning from missions in space may take months to start recovering from dangerous bone-thinning. Living in conditions of near zero-gravity places less stress on bones, and in response, they weaken. This thinning could mean that astronauts are vulnerable to bone fractures." Also because of the lack of work done by the muscles during long durations of weightlessness, the human heart weakens very much from underuse which could endanger a long-term space mission by far.
It's time for humans to return to the Moon after decades away.

Humans were last present on the Moon's surface in 1972. That was a long time ago. With all the major advances in technology that have taken place since then, it is time that humans return to the Moon's surface. This is almost an issue of simply asserting that, in the many decades that have passed, the task of returning to the Moon can be done again, and with much greater ease than in 1972.
Risks of Mars mission jeopardizes funding for NASA.

There is a silent, universal thing known to all NASA people: "If anything goes wrong, we're done for". Simple as that... If anything happens like Apollo 1, that killed astronauts during a test run, inspiration will be plumet for the human race and NASA missions will suffer major financial and p.r. setbacks. With the danger of "Mar missions" being a lot higher than any other thing humans have attempted in space, inspiration, hope, and joy for the human race will be in severe danger because of a huge change that something can go wrong resulting in the termination of the mission or the loss of astronaut lives.
Going back to the Moon is not inspiring.

Going back to the moon is not an inspiring feet, as it only archives what was already achieved in 1969, over 40 years ago. This does not provide a sense of progress, but rather a sense of stagnation. Going to Mars offers a sense of progress, and the broadening of achievable Horizons. In this sense, only going to Mars really scratches the human will to explore new territories, and break down boundaries. Returning to the Moon does not.
Entry into the Martian atmosphere is hazardous

"Going to Mars: A mission fraught with risk." Canadian Space Agency. September 9, 2003: "Hazards of entering into the Martian atmosphere. Entry into the Martian atmosphere is a crucial stage of the mission and represents a massive obstacle to its success. Various factors—such as the density of the Martian atmosphere, a sandstorm, an outcrop of rock, the spacecraft's speed, a faulty trajectory, a lack of fuel, or an electronic glitch—could jeopardize a mission. Many missions have, in fact, failed at this stage."
Public opinion polls favor sending a manned mission to Mars.

"Poll: Americans Say U.S. Should Go To Mars." CBS News. July 20, 2009 "A slim majority of Americans believe the United States should send astronauts to Mars despite the current economic crisis, a newly-released CBS News poll finds. [...] Fifty-one percent of those surveyed back the journey to Mars. Forty-three percent opposed it. In 2004, 48 percent said the U.S. should send astronauts to Mars, while in 1999 that figure was 58 percent."
There is much more to be discovered on/about the Moon

In the scope of research and the gathering of information, Humans have only barely begun to actually study the moon from a scientific perspective. If you are going to do some sort of research or study, the moon is obviously the more logical thing to do is study the Moon because it is much closer and would allow for the easiest, safest, and quickest method of transport of human beings as well as scientific data and evidence because of it's proximity to the Earth. Many things on planet earth are influenced by the moon and having us physically studied it so little it only seems proper and logical to deal with the Moon first and Mars later.
Rescue mission to Mars is not possible

Sam Dinkin. "Colonize the Moon before Mars." The Space Review. September 7, 2004: "First, on a mission to the Moon, Earth rescue is a decent possibility for certain kinds of failures. On a trip to Mars, this would be out of the question. As NASA is finding out with its shuttle return to flight efforts, having a standby rescue ship and a space station to go to makes failure recovery for many failures feasible without too much increased capability from our existing hardware."
A Moon landing will be a catalyst for a Mars landing.

If we landed on the Moon with all our 21st century technology and filmed the moon in high definition for all to see on their televisions the general public would be inspired enough to allow for extra spending for a much more ambitious project like a Mars landing which will take much more time, work, and resources. Not only in the public aspect, but in the scientific aspect, the a new Moon landing would allow for the continual advancement and improving of technology as was seen in the early US space programs in the 1960s and 70s: Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were all continual improvements backed on the top of one another as the programs went up and allowed for nearly seemless transition from orbit, to spacewalks, to docking, and finally to the first Moon landings. If we can do this we can easily and more safely transition from Moon landings, human orbit of mars, extended travel duration in space, and eventually a human being landing on the face of the "red planet"