Abortion is Wrong

We've established 2 things: 1) That the fetus is alive. 2) The fetus is human. So if the fetus is a living human, why do you still say it doesn't have the right to remain alive? You ask, "What separates a fetus from a pig, then? I guess that the fetus is less developed and human..." The answer is quite simple: the pig is a pig, the human is a human. We humans have an innate sense that humans are more valuable than other animals, therefore we kill pigs and chicken and cows.Then you say "... but women do not have the right to "kill" what she has carried, the thing that is using her resources to live, not their own." Are you proposing simply because you use the resources of others that they have the power to decide whether you live or die? You also said that "When they're born, they can sufficiently live independantly, obviously needing to be fed and washed by its parents." What you are saying here is that once the baby moves 8 inches down the birth canal, it is all of a sudden independent, and therefore has enough value to be kept alive. First, it is very far from being independent: you can't leave a baby alone without it dying. But anyways, the fact that the baby is born shouldn't give it new value, it was a simple move from one place to another. If moving life different places changes it's value, then you would gain or lose value based on your movement from work to home, school to work, kitchen to bed etc. We all know that's not how it works. Humans do not derive their value from their location. "However, because it is not able to do anything before it is born, if it is born, then why is it wrong to terminate it?" You once again are naming the value of the embryo due to its level of development: an argument I have already refuted. I will do it again. A 6 year old girl and a 20 year old girl are very different from each other. The 20 year old has gone through many small changes in her life to make her more of a developed woman. The 6 year old has not had these changes yet, she cannot reproduce, she doesn't have the increased breast size or hip width, and she is considerably shorter. Likewise, an unborn fetus is not as developed as the 6 year old. But if the 6 year old has more value because she can run and think, then the 20 year old has more value than the 6 year old because she can reproduce. Now when you say we are talking about our capabilities to "survive independently,*" I'd like to point out that no newborn can survive by itself and none of them show self-consciousness until much later. Even when you say breathing independently will exclude those with iron lungs from the right to life: yes euthanasia, but for sake of argument, let's say I find euthanasia wrong. So saying people gain their value from their development is also flawed. Humans do not derive their value from their level of development. You also talked a bit about independence, making it a deciding factor of your value or your right to life. This is flawed logic as well. An embryo is dependent on its mother like a paraplegic is dependent on a wheelchair, like an injured soccer player is dependent on crutches after his leg breaks. No one in those situations have less value based on their dependency. But maybe you say that the embryo is dependent on the mother to actually LIVE, therefore we can kill it. Well likewise, there are plenty of patients in the hospital who will die if the nurses don't come to their aid. But they all have their rights. Humans do not derive their value from their level of dependency. I want to quick speak on Euthanasia. It was foolish to even have this topic in our debate. You can't solve an equations with 2 unknown variables. I should have realized this earlier before commenting on the topic. So, not knowing enough about that, I'm not going to say much more about it. I do think however that when you say, "...but you would rather save the fetus. And why? Because of pain? Because the woman doesn't feel pain..." We are not talking about the woman's pain just like we aren't talking about the doctor's pain when he's treating his patient who might be killed. We are talking about the fetus' pain. -There are about to be graphic scenes described, but they are all 100% true- We are talking about the pain of forceps piercing your skull and a vacuum collapsing your head while your brain is extracted. We are talking about the pain of a chemical that burns you alive for hours until your body dissolves. We are talking of being dismembered and being literally torn to shreds. We are talking about abortion. Now like I said, I am afraid of speaking more about it, I think if I researched it more, I would come to find that it depends on certain situations. In your closing statement you said, "Let us take the value from the woman, her rights, and her body and give it to the developing, dependent** body of the fetus." Let's be clear. I am stripping the right of the woman to murder; our legal system does it all the time. And if you'd read my previous arguments, you would see I've already addressed this: The baby is not the woman's body. The baby has its own unique DNA, completely different from its mom. The baby is not the woman's body, nor is it her property. In short, the fetus inside the mother is 100% unique, it is 100% alive, and it is 100% human. Don't let women take the rights away from these babies. *- I changed dependantly to dependently **- I changed dependant to dependent Con, you've given arguments that I haven't heard before, so it made this fun. Thanks for your time and interest in the subject.