Abortion Should Be Legal and Unrestricted

"I can argue that dihydrogen monoxide is not water, that doesn't mean my argument has truth behind it." What"s the purpose of this statement? This is basically saying that when people say something they could be lying which is obvious. Second, when you state that my analogy is different because babies outside of the wombs can"t live but people living on computers can, this is just ignorance. For example, "He is confined to his bed in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) because he needs a piece of equipment known as a ventilator to assist him to breathe. Left to breathe on his own, he would soon die.", this is the story of someone who needs a machine to live, without it he would die. Therefore my analogy still works. http://mobile.nation.co.ke... "It also is an important consideration to make when young girls are pregnant " In this case, there are the options for her to let her family raise it, give it up for adoption, foster care, and etc. Now, if the reason why this happened is because of rape or molestation refer to my point about rape cases. If it was a product of reckless sex, then it would be absurd to let them kill someone due to their misconduct. If anything it would teach the certain responsibilities of life, and discipline them. Humans have an innate right to life, since it is in accordance with nature. This is why cultures strive to make advancements to prolong life and please people. People aim for a utilitarian society. And the government's duty is to establish a system where it maximizes good, therefore if they were to make abortion legal in any practical circumstances it would be wrong, and that would be against their obligation. Thus abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. " I'm ignoring your repetitive referring to abortion as "killing." But you have to attack at least once. You essentially just ignored my whole point about why it"s human which is one of my main points. "Why would a woman want to bring up a child in an environment that would not provide their most basic needs?" Saying that a baby can not be supported in the stages where the fetus is developing in the womb is making the assumption that a baby can"t be supported which one can not know for certainty. When someone is in a tough spot they feel it to be worth aborting a life in order to make their life more convenient for them. But instead of choosing to terminate a human"s life, they can choose the free alternative which is to set it up for adoption. "At American Adoptions, 100 percent of a birth mother"s expenses are paid for by the adoptive family" The soon to be murderers can change their decision from being immoral, to one where they give someone a chance to live. They are in the wrong when choosing murder over giving the fetus a chance to live when it"s available to do so, even if they can not support it. Now let"s say that they can"t support the fetus and there happen to be no adoption centers around. Murdering is not the answer as opposed to trying to support the baby. Because no one can say that for sure they are not able to support the baby unless they are soothsayers, which they aren"t. Even if the circumstances are very likely, the position they are putting themselves in is one where they decide to kill, rather than letting it die to nature , even though they have the right of being able to live. The family may be able to support it, but they don"t realize it at the time and kills an innocent human for nothing. It"s insane to choose to kill someone because there is a chance you can"t provide for them. One can not so easily give up on someone else's life. "Fostercare is also not a simple solution, as many foster parents only take children in for financial benefit." To put it simply, my opponent is basically saying that because there is a CHANCE that there will be a bad foster parent, that it justifies killing the child. However a bad foster parent is subjective, therefore the parent may be good for the child. My opponent likes to pretend to be a fortune teller, and know for a fact that their child will be raised by bad parents, thus we can kill them because we made of it. This is of course me mocking the idea that we can judge someone"s life as to whether they will rather die than live with a foster parent. Instead of mothers making that decision, it should be made by the person who is the owner of the life. Let"s say that it was a bad foster parent, how would one know that the child wouldn"t rather live with the parent then die? Also a foster parent providing services for financial benefits, does not entail that they are bad parents, therefore I would like my opponent to provide statistics for "most". My opponent again ignores another paragraph, the one about the mother dying. I stated how the situation should be continued, but my opponent basically just asserts "It just does not deserve precedence over its mother." Therefore I will past the argument again so my opponent can actually refute my points. I don"t say that the baby"s life is worth more than the mothers, nor the other way around. I specifically say how it should be addressed, and why we should take it that way. Mother dying In this case, it is still unjustified to kill the baby due to human error. Doctors may not give correct judgements as they often do, which makes it worth taking the chance. This is not saying that the baby"s life is worth more than the mother"s, (someone"s life being worth more than someone else, is essentially what the opposition is saying when they say that you can kill another human being if your life is at risk) but that in one situation you are killing the baby, and in the other one an individual is passing away in which no one is culpable. It is simply an act of nature. Not only that, but I have found no story of someone being told they will die if they have a baby (if anyone has one post it), but i"m not saying people haven"t died from birthing.