Abortion Is Murder!

Thank you for this well-organized, grammatically-sound response. I will attempt to go through your argument line-by-line. First, however, I want to be sure the voting public has the proper context with which to understand your arguments. Typically, I have no problem allowing one's contentions and logic to speak for themselves, but I feel that there is so much baseless rambling and unsubstantiated defensiveness here that it is incumbent upon me to provide as much color as possible.First, there is Pro's history of glaring inconsistency as shown by two separate debates he/she has started wherein it was resolved that:1. "Creationism is true. Evolution is false. Evolution and science only go back so far."2. "God doesn't exist"As part of #2, Pro states, "Is the Bible, Torah, Quran, etc. more compelling evidence than science?" It takes merely more than grade school logic to see the inherent contradiction between these two viewpoints. The posing of the hypothetical question regarding scripture being more compelling evidence than science is further corroboration of the cognitive and intellectual dissonance maintained by Pro as Creationist theory is explicitly laid out in said scripture.Beyond that, let us just lay out some of Pro's other stances, in his/her own words, to show that the belief, "Abortion Is Murder!" is nothing more than a contention that follows a line of classic conservative ideology and in no way is composed of a single original thought or modicum of deduction.- "Islam is a bad religion"- "Transgenderism should be banned"- "I think all illegal immigrants should be deported to their country of origin"- "Semiautomatic guns such as the AR-15 are proven to be the most effective at self protection"In addition, to further establish the absence of logic, reason, and grammatical correctness, let's look at a few of Pro's other arguments:- In opening a statement about the reasons for accepting atheism, Pro states: "First for all who don't know what "atheism" is. in which nearly 100% of the population on planet earth doesn't, it is simply by the very definition of the dictionary." Even after one takes the remarkable amount of time needed to sort through the grammatical and syntactical errors found in that statement, one is left with the comment that "nearly 100% of the population on planet earth doesn't" know what atheism is. I beg to differ sir or madam.- Pro also started a debate on the topic of '0.999... = 1'. I don't think it is necessary to do anything aside from linking to this debate for all to see the absurd type of "arguments" Pro makes: http://www.debate.org...Now, on to Pro's most recent response in this thread. Let's go line by line:1. "No abortion is not justified murder." - I would love to give Pro the benefit of the doubt and assume they forgot a comma such that their intended sentence was, "No, abortion is not justified murder." Unfortunately, based on Pro's history in this and other debates, I cannot rule out the possibility that they may have inadvertently used a double negative to contradict themselves.2. "The freaking definition of murder is in short an UNLAWFUL killing." - As this is Pro's debate, it remains his/her responsibility to define terms, lest that opportunity fall to me. Pro has already stated the definition of murder as, "Killing a life is murder." Nowhere can be found the word, "unlawful", capitalization notwithstanding.3. "There is a difference between killing and murdering." - Please see point #2 directly above4. "No I still don't support abortion on any of your hypotheticals, the only case I would allow an abortion is if the mother will die." - This butchering of the English language is getting painful.5. "Now to your -'s. Here are some hypotheticals for you." - Answering a question with an unrelated question has to be one of the lowliest, least effective debate tactics that exists among the somewhat-educated. It is as if you were on trial for murdering your wife's lover and I asked, in cross-examination, "AKMath, do you think a person should be executed for committing crimes of passion?" and then you responded, "Let me ask you something..." I don't see how this is a fathomably valid way to defend oneself.Moving to those hypotheticals...5a. "Would you kill someone in a coma or persistent vegetative state." - I am definitely not categorically against euthanasia, but that is a debate we can engage in another time as it is different from abortion to a degree of significance that it warrants its own discussion.5b. "How the hell are you supposed to know if the baby is going to be a murderer at birth?" - I don't know if it's necessary to start using foul language here. This feels like a manifestation of frustration to me, but I'm not here to judge. Of course you cannot *know* that a baby is going to be a murderer at birth. This is, as Pro has correctly identified, a hypothetical question. It is a common tactic used in debates. I'll let authorities greater than myself step in here: "It is a common part of moral reasoning to propose hypothetical scenarios...asking these types of questions helps the participants formalize and understand their moral positions. Yet one common response to hypothetical scenarios is to challenge some axiom of the problem...fighting the premises of a hypothetical scenario is changing the topic to focus on something different than topic of conversation intended by the presenter of the hypothetical question. When changing the topic is appropriate is a different discussion, but it is obtuse to fail to notice that one is changing the subject."5c. "Adoption, and would you kill a child whose parent was financially ruined abusing drugs and are homeless." - Is that a real sentence?5d. "How were Hitler's parents supposed to know he'd be Hitler when he was a baby?" - See 5b.6. "With your first - your denying someone of their life, for a condition or state they are in." - See 5c.7. "P.S. Most of your hypotheticals make no sense." - See 5b.Looking forward to hearing back. Have a great day!