Abortion is immoral.

Jeez. This is rather nerve racking. :B Okay, so irrelevant fact, but I'm actually playing devil's advocate here. So don't get the wrong impression, I'm not actually as imposing or self-righteous as I may seem. Also, if I may make a correction, I am referring abortions in the normal case, after consensual, fully informed sex, and not abortions in rape cases and other obscure occurrences. Yes, and I don't consider Birth Control to be immoral. And I'll keep in that mind and try to provide an opening argument next time. So without further "ado"... ===Con's Case=== 1. The mother has the right to abortion. My opponent opens with "...the mother's rights trump the non-existent rights of the fetus." I agree. The mother should have a right to abort. However, this is irrelevant. If we see a person on the street suffering from a heart attack, it is within our rights to ignore him. Does this mean that said course of action is moral? Yes, the mother has the CHOICE to an abortion, but there are moral and immoral choices, leading to moral and immoral outcomes. Yes, the mother has the choice to abortion, but this is not a matter of choice, but rather a matter of morals. So unless my opponent is trying to lay this as a premise for something, rights don't prove anything in this matter. 2. A fetus is not at a certain level of sentience, and therefore does not have the right to live. My opponent claims "Just because the fetus is a living thing does not mean it necessarily has the right to life... a particular level of conscious determines whether or not one indeed has the right to life. While plants are conscious, they do not posses this right.". To back up this statement, she points out that "A living person with brain death is considered legally deceased", and concludes that the fetus is not a person. However, this argument was made without thorough consideration. For every living human being will pass through periods of sleep. Does this mean that during these periods, we lose our rights as a human being and are no longer considered human? Does this mean that we pass one third of our life, "legally deceased"? Does this mean that the murder of a comatose patient is perfectly moral? No. The true factor in determining who or what has the right to life is probably the POTENTIAL for sentience. A brain dead person does not have a feasible chance to regain consciousness. Therefore, he/she is legally deceased. An inert or comatose patient has the POTENTIAL for regaining consciousness. Therefore he/she has the right to life. A fetus is likely to gain this certain level of consciousness, therefore it should be treated with the rights and privileges any human should have. ===Pro's Case=== I have quite a simple case, in reality. 1. Intentionally inflicting harm for the sake of expediency is immoral (Premise) 2. If an unwanted pregnancy is achieved through consensual sex, the child is held within the responsibility of the guardians. (Premise) 3. In an abortion, the mother is trying to escape responsibility by the inflicting harm on another human life. 4. Abortion is immoral. (Conclusion) So instead of abortion, why not opt for the more moral alternative? Although evading responsibility in itself is sketchy, adoption is a safe way of eliminating unnecessary responsibility without the moral consequences. ===Conclusion=== My opponent claims in her conclusion "To force a woman to utilize her body in certain ways against her will is immoral.". This is not true. My opponent might as well say that to force a man into prison and strip him of common rights is immoral. In the case of unwanted pregnancy through consensual sex, the woman ACKNOWLEDGES that she may have to utilize her body in certain ways against her will as a potential consequence. Just like how an embezzler acknowledges that he/she may face prison as a potential consequence. Unless my opponent can prove that prison for offenders is immoral, her statement is invalid. Thank you.