Is abortion moral

Thanks for responding. Just to start off, I was wondering where you got your list of requirements for being living? As far as I've seen, these are the requirements to be considered living: 1. Living things are made of cells 2. Living things obtain and use energy 3. Living things have different levels of organization 4. Living things grow and develop 5. Living things reproduce 6. Living things respond to their environment 7. Living things adapt to their environment I'm sure you can agree that 1, 2, 3, and 4 all apply. Let me know if you have a concern on one of those. As for reproduction, of course a fetus cannot reproduce, but it will be able to. While in development, those necessary parts are grown. And a 5 year old cannot reproduce, but I think we can agree that they are alive. They cannot YET, as those specific parts are still developing. We know as well that a fetus can respond to stimuli, and a fetus grows to its environment an adapts during birth to a new environment. Many of your points are supported by the idea that the fetus isn't alive. But it is. By its very definition, it is alive, as it is growing and developing. And yes, women should be able to control their bodies (although I did mention before that no one is allowed complete bodily autonomy), but a fetus is not part of the woman's body. It is inside the woman's body. The fetus has unique DNA, along with its own limbs and organs. In some cases the fetus has a different blood type, or different genitalia. I'm sure you would agree that pregnant women do not have four arms and legs, or two sets of internal organs. The illegal abortion was an interesting point, but the unsafe abortions occur primarily in countries that don't have advanced medical technology. However, the main point I want to make is this: If the fetus is a human being deserving human rights, why should we make it safer to kill them? Sometimes a murderer is shot by the police, but we don't make murder legal just so that those individuals can kill without worry of punishment. In addition, in this country, abortion has never been a huge cause of death amongst women. According to Mary Calderone, who was a president of Planned Parenthood, only 260 people died in 1957 due to any kind of abortion. Many statistics fight the number as 5,000 to 10,000 annually, even though that number was revealed to be false by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL. When it comes to teenagers, I don't believe that abortion to teen pregnancy. Education is better than resorting to abortion. By teaching teens to be responsible, to be careful, and to think about making any decisions that could result in a pregnancy, we can lower the rate. Rather than confronting the issue of teens becoming pregnant, abortion just allows the same problem to continue. I would also like to point out this: the only purpose of sex is reproduction. While it can be something fun and exciting, it is designed to produce children. While anyone may choose to have sex, they don't get to choose the potential outcome that they become pregnant. Being pregnant isn't a punishment for having sex, it is simply to result of an action that was designed purely for that purpose. And while you didn't want to talk about late-term abortions, I would like to include this statistic. You said only 1.4% of abortions are late-term. Because there are 1.06 million abortions every year, that means that about 14,840 late-term abortions occur annually. To compare to that figure, around 13,290 people were killed with firearms. Just because it isn't the majority doesn't mean it is irrelevant. Finally, I would like to say that our society already considers the unborn to be persons. The only thing that can take away the status is if the fetus is unwanted by the mother. The murder of a pregnant woman can be counted as a double homicide, yet an abortion of the same child would be considered fine. To protect someone based on how much they are wanted is immoral. All unborn children should be protected equally.