Abortion in any case, should be against the law.

"Some evolutionists like to say a pig is more of a human than the fetus itself. But the pig will never become a human. A fetus will."Yes I did word it very unclear. I should have said "Some evolutionist like to say a pig is more of a human than the fetus itself. But the pig is not human. The fetus is."What made you come to the conclusion that people will come to conclude this statement? You provide no evidence so I can neither concede nor refute the statement. Likewise, I can say that some people believe the spagetti monster is real. Murderer is defined as: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." - Google.com Whats up with the random definition? I provided a definition to explain why abortion is not considered murder. You, on the other hand, gave me a definition...with no supporting facts."What makes that one person different from the other 7 billion currently residing on earth?"That is kind of like asking what made Einstein different than the people around him at his day. Everyone is different. God made everyone for a purpose, whether it be small, or huge.Youre not getting what I am conveying with that rhetorical question. I am suggesting that the chances of finding the right "genius" is statistically improbable. If cancer was easy to cure, then one of those 7 billion people should have already solved that problem. We've been on the earth for thousands of years now so the TOTAL population (if we take into consdieration every single human life since the age of humans) isn't even close to 7 billion people. Yet, not 1 person was able to solve the cancer problem. What makes that "what if" probablilty more significant than those 7+ billion people before us? More importantly, you are nit-picking on the small issues that I provide. You failed to realize the overall argument with that example. When you that that pargraph as a whole, I am aruging that to make a genius you need the right environment. If the parents arent ready to have a child, what are the chances that the genius would come to fruit? Moreover, even given the possiblilty that the genius does become very influential, it wouldn't be right to say that it was worth the sacrafice of the parents, if the parents werent ready to have that child, but ended up having him because they knew that he would become a genius."First of all, obamacare deals with insurance, not with physical removal of life support."Really? You better check again. Obama care will remove life support, but the stupid thing is the congress passed a law that them and the president would not have to have Obama care. That way they could life on life support if the need it. Check the facts. If you believe what the press tells you, all I can say is good luck.Please show me evidence besides just stating random facts that you believe are to be true. Throughout this whole debate, you showed no evidence to your arguments. Please change that for the next round. Also, you failed to rebut my statement. Obamacare deals with insurance policies. How does insurance policies transition towards physical removal of life support?Anyhoo even if this absurd statement was true, then I hope you realize that healthcare would be really no different. If you haven't realized that our current healthcare is based on social economic status, then maybe you should educate yourself before you critize other policies. However back to the topic at hand, ABORTION: I like how youre criticising me for digressing when I am only addressing the obamacare statement THAT YOU MADE."Even if I am 100% sure that the mother will produce another Einstein, but if she doesn't have the social or economic means to rear the child, that would mean that she raised a child against her will."That is the most pathetic argument I have ever heard. Haven't you ever heard of foster care? If the mother does not want it, give it to foster care. Don't just kill it. Maybe if you read the whole paragraph before commenting my statements wouldnt be so pathetic. "As for people saying adoption is a plausibility, one should consider the chances of being adopted by the right family with the right resources to rear a genius."So what? You would rather be a murderer than actually trying to give this person a chance at life? Adoption as a whole is a messed up process. But it could be fixed with some cooperation on both sides. Life is to important to ignore it. Wow this statement is messed up on so many levels. First of all, so what? What do you mean "so what?" It doesnt matter if parents suffer as long as we get that child alive,right? It doesnt matter that the parents would not know/be ready to raise that child, as long as the child is alive, right? It's fine if parents ignore their children, because that's the best way to raise a child, right? Moreover, your comment suggests that rape is moral. As long as a fetus is formed as a result of rape, that fetus has the rights to live. Screw the mother, shes just a means to an end, right? Again, I gave you my scenario what defines murder and why abortion is not murder. You keep making assertions without support. Please learn the value of providing supporting evidence for your claims. It makes your arguments SO much stronger. Yes, you agreed that adoption is a messed up process so therefore, we should screw it up even more by adding more unwanted birth to this earth. You suggest a resolution to adoption. If it's that easy, why hasn't it been solved yet?"Life is TOO important to ignore." You used a wrong word, bro. Again, you don't define what life is. What murder is. What your actual argument is. You make assertions without refrences or supporting facts."Secondly, we have to go back to the mother's rights. What's her reasoning for enduring 9 months of pain and suffering? What makes the baby's rights more important than the life giver, the mother?"I would say it is her fault. She had unprotected sex. She must life the consequences instead of killing an innocent person for no reason. The baby's rights are not more important. Neither are the mother's. Both of their rights are equally important. That's why if there is a 100% chance that the mother will die in birth (rarely if ever 100%) and a 10% chance that the baby will survive, we have to go with the baby. The mother would have been killed by natural causes. Notice the odds are never this bad against the mother.What it comes to is you have to know that the baby's life is just as important as the mother's. No more, no less. Pro puts the fault on the mothers. I think this is wrong, especially in the case of rape. His statement suggests that rape is moral, because it's clearly the mothers fault for being raped. She shouldnt have dressed so provactively. This is such an absurd statement that I will not continue to rebut your ridiculous statements.Lastly, I want the readers to know that PRO has not refuted ANY of my claims nor has he supported any of his arguments with evidence. Throughout both rounds, he goes on making statements without references and when I ask for evidence, he drops the ball and switches topics. While it is true that I did not use refrences either, one should note that I am refuting his arguments with common sense.