Abortion is generally immoral.

On Morality: "People feel guilt over wrong actions."- That just means that most people have a sense of morality, not that all morals are the same. Plus, can we prove that everyone ACTUALLY feels guilty and that they aren't just saying it? "While there are some things which people can disagree on, such as whether or not a little white lie is bad, there are things which anyone would feel bad after committing, such as rape or murder."- This is just false. Then there are lots of records of people committing murder and not feeling bad about it because the person they murdered wronged them. Some rapists are so messed up that they do not feel guilty for what they did. Other people just do not feel guilty for murder for one reason or another. Morality is not consistent or set in stone. "We can also see that there have been objective beliefs all throughout history. Looking back at ancient cultures like the Greeks and Egyptians, we can see that even they believed that one should generally live unselfishly, although they might disagree as to whom one should be unselfish toward."- Cultures have similar moral standards because we are all human and have similar interests. Morals keep order. The greeks had a much different set of morals than we do. Being gay was not abnormal or considered bad in their culture. Women were second class citizens. They had servants and slaves. Then there is the Hindu culture with the caste system in which the "untouchables" are raped and murdered and no one feels guilty about it. Those in the caste system are not socio or psychopaths, they just have a different sense of morality. Slavery, sexism, racism, genocide: they are all things we consider to be terribly immoral but were moral to many people who were not psychopaths or sociopaths. They were normal in their culture and their time. Clearly morality is subjective. Scientific Evidence: "I still contend that now that the question of the life and humanity has been confirmed, abortion should be considered immoral. If the preborn were not humans, then no reason would be required. If the preborn are human, then no reason would be sufficient."- Now my opponent asserts that only human life is sacred, that only humans have a right to life. We kill animals, plants, and living things all the time. If humans have a right to life, mustn't they as well? Or is human life for some reason valuable and important while other life is not? Philosophical: "For example, if having a personality makes you a person, then value would be in degrees. A person with a favorable personality would be more valuable than a person with a mean disposition. This would allow for legal discrimination."- Not at all. That is not what I was saying. I am saying what makes someone a person is not their species or the fact that they are alive, but their personality. By those standards my cat is more of a person than an unborn fetus and rightly so. I honestly care more about my cat than an unwanted fetus. Can you say differently about your pet? Or about your friends? Do you care about an unborn fetus as much as you care about your friends? "Obviously Rogue would claim that homeless people, or orphans, or widows whose family have all died off should not be considered people. if people loving you were the criterion for personhood, then those who are more loved would be more valuable than those who are less loved, or not loved at all. In Dickens' A Christmas Carol, it would have been morally justifiable for Bob Cratchit to have killed Ebenezer Scrooge rather than continue to work for him."- Um, no. Your affect on others is not a criterion for personhood like personality, but it does make one more important that another. When a homeless person dies, only those who knew him feel sorrow. When an average person dies, all of their friends and family feel sorrow. When a president dies, the whole country is affected. He is indeed more important than we are because he has such a profound impact on so many people. That is why he is under such strict guard while we are not. The mother has a much bigger affect on people than an unborn fetus because she has people who love and care about her whereas the fetus does not. This makes the fetus very unimportant. Although, a wanted fetus is important because it is loved, wanted, and cared for. "However, again, affecting people is arbitrary."-If that were true than we should have just as much protection for average citizens as we do for the president. If that were true than we wouldn't save the women and children first and the elderly last. This does not mean that we should not try to treat people equally, but it is pretty clear that in our culture, some are more important than others. "Those who do express their emotions would be more valuable than those who don't."- Not at all. Why does everything become a point system with you? I never said "those who have the most emotions or have better personalities are more of a person than those that don't", just that emotions and personality are what make you a person, not your species or the fact that you are alive. "Having a life? A child doesn't really "have a life" until they turn five years old and go to Kindergarten. those who live a more fulfilling life would be more valuable than those who don't."- I disagree. They have started a life with their family and friends. Who said anything about fulfilling lives being more valuable? "the pro-life position is the non-discriminatory one, because we believe that all people are valuable, from fertilization to natural death."- No. Your position asserts that an unborn fetus is more important than the mother carrying it. The mother's life is at risk in so many ways, as I mentioned before, when pregnant. Btw, blacks were considered 3/5s of a person, not two. "it's more dangerous to drive a car than it is to undergo pregnancy. [1] You have a 1 in 6,000 chance of dying in a car accident. The chance of a woman dying during a pregnancy is 13 in 100,000. This translates into 1%."- I would like to see you cite that. Also, just because the mother doesn't die during pregnancy doesn't mean that pregnancy doesn't have other possible bad side effects. Just naming some: post-pardum depression, high blood pressure, placenta increta, placenta percreta, problems with different Rhs, infertility, group B strep, gestational diabetes, placenta previa, placental abruption, Bell's palsy, or even breast cancer. Also a pregnancy can develop into a high-risk pregnancy if it is an ectopic pregnancy, a molar pregnancy, a premature birth. http://www.americanpregnancy.org... http://www.dcdoctor.com... What about the mental effects of giving a baby up for adoption? It is extremely hard for a mother to give up a baby they have carried for 9 months and can have severe mental side effects. http://www.birthmothers.info... "but why is that more difficult than having your child killed outright?"- Because a mother does not feel a bond to a fetus when it is in its first trimester. The mental side effects occur from carrying a baby for so long. Alright, so I should have used the word embryo. "There is no argument you can use to take away its value"- What gives humans their right to live or their value? Why does that apply to only humans? "The criminal who is killed because he murdered someone has forfeited his own right to life."- Who decides that? These are mere assertions. Constitutional? http://www.oyez.org... Pro has completely forgotten that pregnancy puts the rest of the woman's life on hold for a long time and can take away valuable opportunities that she will likely never get again. Pro keeps saying that everyone has a right to life just for being human and that some people forfeit their right to life by committing crimes. Where is he getting these rules?