Abortion is generally immoral.

Before even continuing this debate, I would like to points out that my opponent already broke 3 rules. In the first round, it clearly stated the rules. Since my opponent wasn't exactly polite I don't believe I will forgive them for the rules they broke. If it was just 1 rule broken, perhaps I would of, but since it was 3, and they weren't exactly polite, I cannot. Here are the rules they broke, and proof of them breaking it.Rule 5: No making your own definition (only applies to opponent)". Here is the Webster diction definition of a Human being : "A man, woman, or child of the species Homo Sapiens, distinguished form other animals by superior in mental development, power of articulate speech, and an upright stance".Rule 6: No profanity."Dude, your being a complete ***hole the way you talk about rape!" Rule 7: No personal attacks"Dude, your being a complete ***hole the way you talk about rape! " As you can see, my opponent broke not only 1, but 3 rules. I urge that voters remember the deduction agreed upon when you vote. Please remember the 7 point deduction.===================================================================================== Now that that's taken care of, I will now continue with rebuttals."Isn't influencing lives immoral? You should only be responsible for your own, changing another's life, in the case of abortion for the worse, is highly immoral." Influencing lives for the better is moral, especially if it is to save another innocent being. Now, since you argued I that a fetus can't be innocent, I will now prove you wrong. I am permmited to create definitions, however you aren't, as established in the rules. Innocent: "free from moral wrong; without sin; pure" [1] So someone innocent is someone that did no wrong. This child isn't even born yet, and thus incapable of wrong doing. Anyway, though that was off-topic, it will come back later in my refutations. So changing another's life is immoral in the case of abortion. This is both wrong and irrelevant. It is moral to stop someone from doing something immoral. Killing an innocent being- regardless if it is concious or not is immoral. So if someone were to force someone else not to kill a being, it is moral. Furthermore, even if such were true, it is irrelvant. If stoping something was immoral, that doesn't mean the thing they are stopping is moral. "I said some stuff about the fetus not being self conscious, and you COMPLETELY disregarded me for it. The fetus does not exist on the worldy realm yet, until it is out of the womb, it has not yet lived. A fetus is a fetus. Here is the Webster diction definition of a Human being : "A man, woman, or child of the species Homo Sapiens, distinguished form other animals by superior in mental development, power of articulate speech, and an upright stance". Lets compare a human fetus to that of the definition of "Human being". Does a fetus have superior mental development to that of an adult? Or a dog? I would think not. Can a fetus recite Shakespeares "Macbeth" while holding the script in its hands? I would think not. Can a fetus stand up? I certainly hope not, that would cause negative development in the womb to the mother, as well as said fetus." Regardless if a fetus is conscious or not, it is immoral to kill it since it is innocent. Since it is a fetus, it is expected to live, expected to have a conscious. So killing it is just killing it in it's unconscious form, though it is innocent. Does a fetus have superior mental development than an adult? Of course not, but it is expected to. Furthermore, does a new born baby have that either? Can a newborn baby stand? No! Can a fetus recite macbeth while holding it in his hands? No! Neither can a fully grown man that can't read! Just because it can't do average human activities does not make him unhuman. If a fetus isn't human, what species is it? s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="" /> "I say how many mothers go through birth control because they acknowledge they couldn't support a child, and are taking the wise initiative to dispose of the fertilized egg or fetus, depending on month of pregnancy.Once again, you state this argument as a case of legality, not morality. Seriously? I would say its immoral to take miscare of a child, not misfeed a child, to miseducate a child mentally, socially, and physically. Denying the child to food, motherly love, and school, is the very immoral, and this doesn't happen if the mother aborts in the womb, both the child and mother are spared hardships. Morality, because the child and mother are receiving proper care." This completly ignores the argument you are refuting. I said if they can't care for it, put it up for adoption. It is much better that way than killing it. Killing it is immoral because it is innocent as proven already."You proven jack squat about the Fetus being a self-conscious human being. Do you remember being in your mothers womb? When did you really have your first memory? Stop using fetus and innocent in the same sentence, you've given no scientific proof that a fetus is self-conscious." I am not required to prove it is self-conscious. I just need to prove it is human, as I have already done. Furthermore, I also proved that it is innocent, since it isn't possible for it to do wrong. I don't need scientific proof. I already scientifically proved it is human. You didn't scientifically prove it isn't self-conscious. "Dude, your being a complete ***hole the way you talk about rape! Why must a woman care for a rape-conceived baby? That doesn't seem very logical, wise, or moral. Why is it unfair to kill it? She didn't want to have the baby, she didn't give consent to the person responsible, so WHY IN LORD BUDDHA'S MUST SHE HAVE A CHILD? Have you considered she doesn't want children? Trauma can be permanent, one time my dad got a clown for my birthday, and guess what? I'm still afraid of clowns. Rape pain? What a dreadful euphemism. Neither of us have been raped, so I doubt either of us know the trauma and pain suffered through it. Once again, you've proven me nil that the fetus is self-conscious." You still ignore the point. The point is that even if she got raped, that doesn't mean she should kill a baby. This is immoral. She killed a child to end her trauma. She chose her own selfish needs over life, innocent life. Furthermore, trauma weakens regardless if it dissapeares or not. Once, again, I have no need to prove a fetus is self-conscious."Before Start ranting again, I've noticed that your platform for EVERY argument and rebuttal of yours, is that the Fetus, or a "Human being" in your words, is innocent. How? It doesn't mentally exist yet. Its just a bunch of cells. I ask you again, what scientific evidence proves that fetus's and are self-conscious?" It doesn't need to mentally exist to be innocent, as I have proven. There is no need for me to prove it is conscious, because it doesn't remove the fact that it is human, and innocent. I ask you again, what scientific proof do you have that it isn't self-conscious? Regardless if you do or don't it is irrelevant."Conclusion? Sometimes abortion is immoral, but most times it isn't. That rape thing was completely ludicrous, by the way. And don't say that I didn't prove abortion is moral, because you didn't prove that it is Immoral. You also have no opinion towards your own statements, one cannot legitimately criticize their own work with accuracy. That's up to the public." I have proved that a fetus is human. Though possibly not conscious, it is still human. Since it didn't cause any harm, it is innocent. So killing it, an innocent child is immoral, since it is innocent. You have no platform whatsoever, you only rebutted my arguments. With your refutations, you were unable to prove that abortion is moral in most cases. I proved in almost all cases it is immoral. I proved my points, you don't have any in the first place.======================================================================================In conclusion, I proved a fetus is human, and innocent. Whether or not it is self-conscious, it doesn't effect this fact. My opponent made no argument, or valid refutation to prove that in most cases abortion is moral. Furthermore, he insulted me, my opinions, and broke 3 rules in 1 round.Please voters remember the 7 point deduction. Source:1.http://dictionary.reference.com...;