Abortion Should Be Abolished

"They can be as dispassionate about the taking of an Afghan civilians life as they can be passionate about abortion and let's not forget the thousands of child casualties that have resulted from the U.S. lead war on terror, Surely some of these children are as innocent as a foetus. Selective morality is undeniably hypocritical. But as we have already agreed, morality is subjective." As I said before, I believe that the killing of Afghan lives is terrible, and a waste, and against my morals, HOWEVER, people understand collectively that this morally wrong, and the casualties are trying to be avoided. I personally believe the Army is taking all costs NOT to kill an innocent, and for that, I am not mad at them. They are only trying their best. Abortion on the other hand is purposeful, with the full intention of murdering a fetus. They do not try to avoid it, or find other possibilities and instead choose to destroy it. Again, I feel that both kinds of death are morally wrong, but one I am more tolerant of due to the circumstances around it. "The clear implications of unnaturally prolonging life is over-population and the resulting impact on Planet Earth and it's natural environment. I would suggest that this has a far greater negative impact on society than the abortion of an unwanted foetus." As much as I would love to debate this, I can't really discuss this now. We could judge the negative impacts of each for round after round, and while I think this is a fair point, it is a whole other topic of itself. However, if you wish to bring to the table a few specific example, I might be able to debate this with you. "Are you prepared to test the water?" Of course! I think if each U.S. state voted in terms of abortion, then the results would be different. Alabama would obviously be pro-life, while California would obviously be pro-choice. So yes, millions have different moral views, which is why I try to prove it is murder. When I do that, it is not up to morals, but simply laws. I would frame the opponent and therefore they would not be able to progress. Therefore, as long as this stays true and people mention this, I would believe that we vote correctly. The fact that a lot of America is religious is helpful too. "Powerful societies bullying weaker ones into submission is a pretty grim approach to foreign policy making and as recent history shows, generally leads to far more problems that it solves. I think your suggestion that weaker nations would inevitably follow a U.S. lead on anti-abortion legislation is a somewhat naive assumption. I would suggest that a highly secular U.K referendum would produce a similar result to the recent Irish vote and as I pointed out the collective will of the Irish people decided that existing anti-abortion laws should be amended in favour of pro-choice." Who said bullying? I said influencing. When bullying does happen, I agree with you that things get worse. However, influence is different. In most cases, simply influence doesn't hurt anything, because it lets the other countries reach the new result in their own time. I trust that America would not hold a gun to the head's of other countries. All it takes it two or three big powers to outlaw abortion, then the rest will most likely find their way. About the moving from one country to another to gain access, that is predicted and more or less okay. As long as the "door" to abortion is closing, it is okay. As long as the move is gaining, eventually, the people cannot go anywhere convenient enough or legal. "In round 2, I left you with a further point for consideration regarding the nature of the mother/foetus connection. I was suggesting that the foetal mass was no more than an extension of the parental mass." Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Blood is flowing through that child, in fact, it is probably another blood type. The brain is making simple thoughts apart from the host. The body is moving, it is growing, and while it may be connected physically to the mother, it is itself a different entity. Finally, I would like to quote Matt Walsh, who made a statement on Abortion today at the summit of Western Conservatives. The link is below. Think what you may about morals or ethics being subjective, but I would beg you to look at this at a philosophical standpoint. "You can tell everything you need to know about a society by how it treats its children. And so what do you learn about ours? The most innocent, the most pure, the most beautiful of all people are the precise ones that we have targeted. Now you'd think that if we decided to wage this war on human life, it would make sense to start somewhere else among the chain. You know, start wiping out the adults first. People like you and I. Because adults can be cruel, selfish, ugly, mean, many of them have already waster their potential. Their beauty and purity has rotted away after years spent abusing themselves and those around them. It's wrong of coarse to start aborting adults, I'm not condoning that. But at least we have an ugliness to us, that you could use as some flimsy justification. But children? They have harmed no one. They are filled with joy and potential and love. And if we cannot see the value and worth of a child, then who can we see it in? I remain in forever and always astounded by the dull and empty sorts of people that would look at an unborn child and see only a clump of cells..." I encourage you to watch the rest, and also remember that these are his words, not mine. And again, I hope that instead of using your subjective argument against this, you simply take it as it is, as that will mean much more to the reader. Good luck.