Abortion is Wrong

"Now if you counted the number of fingers in a pregnant woman's body, you get the answer of 20 fingers. That's double the number she is supposed to have. In fact there's double of everything." That is not strictly true. At the time at which most abortions take place the foetus does not possess a full set of organs yet, so no there is not double of everything. "Whether it's connected to her or not, it is not the mother and she does not have the choice to let it live or die." Actually, yes she does. Unless she is physically restrained or somehow prevented from doing so, the woman has the freedom of 'choice' to do whatever she wants, in this case choosing whether to abort the foetus. Someone merely telling her she can't, should hold no bearing on whether she will or won't. "No it's not." Since you could not share any reasons as to why your point was not hypocritical, I can assume that you had none to give. "I believe you can kill someone who is deserving of being killed." So you *are* saying that if one can justify their reasons, a person can be killed. But, murder is murder and at the end of the day you're endorsing it with points like that. Also it is heavily subjective to say that you can "kill someone who is deserving of being killed" since different people will have differing levels of what they would consider "deserving of being killed". "But the fetus inside her is a human being, and its life should not be ended due to it accidentally inconveniencing her." Abortion is used when the mother does not want a child generally because it would currently be an inconvenience. What does a person do when they have an inconvenience? They attempt to remove said inconvenience. If you no longer wanted your prepubescent child that was inconveniencing you, you would 'remove' them from your life (adoption, foster care, boarding school etc.). In the same train of thought abortion is used to 'remove' the foetus inside the woman; the death of the foetus is merely a by-product of this removal. There is no intent to kill, merely to remove. If you could remove a foetus without killing it, I'm sure everyone would be doing that instead but unfortunately we don't have such technology yet (at least from what I know). When applied to your analogy, moving the Buick from your parking spot (abortion) would 'remove' your inconvenience. But then it all comes back to whether your 'choice' would be to remove the inconvenience or not. You explicitly stated "My response to this is very simple and very logical. Those parents should first kill their oldest child". There are so many other ways to alleviate the financial problem you posed. Put the child in a home. Put the child up for adoption or foster care. Leave the child with another family member. All of these are better ways than merely killing the child. "Never would I endorse the murder of an already born child. Unless maybe of course it was inconveniencing you." Sarcasm I hope... I am Pro-Choice and believe abortion is not wrong for any reason because the final decision lies directly with the woman involved regardless of whether the foetus is alive or not. Also it shouldn't be considered murder because there is no intent to kill the foetus, merely the intent to remove it. Thank you for the debate.