Should abortion be allowed

Before I begin my final argument I would like to tally the Pro's vs Con's of this debate that have been made so far. My arguments: -If preventing a life due to abortion is bad, then any type of birth control is equally bad -You cannot murder what is not yet alive. A fetus in the first trimester has no consciousness, and cannot feel pain, it isn't aware of its own existence -Mother's should have a choice to what happens to their body -Controlling birth is an efficient method of preventing human overpopulation -It is cruel to force a pregnant woman to die just because the child will live longer than her -It is irresponsible to force someone that cannot take care of a child to give birth My opponents arguments: -A full life (like a newborn baby) is worth more than a part life (like a mother) given by the equation C x Q x D = V Where C is the chance, Q is the quality decrease, and D is the duration. So in retrospect con has given us only one argument. Refuting of my opponents argument: While I do not believe we need to bring math into an abortion argument, I would like to point out that my opponents equations are incorrect. Q should be quality of life, not decrease in quality of life. What we are trying to represent is that a higher number = more valuable life. The way my opponent has fraised it, a bigger decrease in quality of life would result in a higher value. This would mean that a woman with a worse life is more valuable than a woman with a good life. I would also like to point out that you cannot accurately boil down the value of any single life to a mathematical equation. That is just absurd. Defending my arguments: Birth control argument: I once again state that if preventing a life due to abortion is bad, than so is any type of birth control. Either you must hold birth control, condoms, and oral sex to the same standard of evil as abortion, or you must reconsider your argument. Any fertile man and woman have the potential to create a child. Anything which allows sex and prevents children is a form of birth control. My opponents argument against this is somewhat confusing: - "I would like my opponent to support the contention that a fertile man in Canada and a fertile woman in New Zealand can create a child"" So your saying that two people that live far away from each do not have the potential to create a child? I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with my point... Mothers right argument: A mother should have the right to choose what happens with her own body. If the fetus is considered to be part of the mother, and we assume the first statement to be true, than logically she should be allowed to abort. If someone is not in a position to make decisions for themselves, than their right to make decisions is forfeited to their next of kin. This law is held world wide. If we assume that this is morally correct, then a mother should have the right to choose what happens to the fetus. Overpopulation: Overpopulation is a debate in itself. I don't think my opponent realizes the dramatic effects over population would have on the human race. War, world wide poverty, economic collapse due to scarcity of resources, hunger, and disease would be rampant throughout the earth. Obviously this is something to avoid. Birth control gives us a means of controlling the population. It is considered a kindness to neuter and spayed pet's in order to stop them from overpopulating, and starving on the streets. http://peakoil.com... If you believe a mother should be forced to die so that she may give birth, simply because the child would live longer than she would, congratulations to my opponent, vote con. If you believe that there should be some middle ground, vote pro! Lastly I would just like to say that although I feel my opponent and I were speaking different languages throughout this debate, it was nonetheless fun. Thank you Con, I enjoyed debating this with you.