Abortion should in most cases be illegal.

My opponent says that my infinite babble will likely not be read by any potential judges. confused, I looked back through my previous argument and I remain unclear on what he is concurring with. He states that parent's don't wish to leave their babies at a fire station because they might be to busy to handle it. This is nothing more than an unfounded assumption. My opponent has provided no evidence to support this claim and as he is asserting that the firemen would not go through with one of their duties I would recommend that he provide a source. I would argue that even if orphanages have poor living conditions and a lack of food is true (again, no source.) It would be preferable to non-existence. My opponent dropped the argument regarding my scientific point, but as he did provide an argument anyway I will address it. The fact that their brain is underdeveloped is irrelevant. your profile says you're fifteen years old, therefore your brain is underdeveloped as well. it doesn't matter. As for his point that killing someone outside of the womb is more severe than killing someone inside of the womb. Why? they are human. they are alive. Next he states that Plants are alive, and therefore I should object to killing them. My opponent has once again presented us with a fallacy. this argument falls under the fallacy colloquially known as "apples and oranges" or drawing comparisons between events or sets of circumstances that seem to share a common denominator but are in fact distinct from one another by virtue of having occurred during different time periods, in different places, under different socio-economic conditions, to different groups of people, etc., can lead to the incorrect assumption that, just because something is true under one set of circumstances, it will necessarily hold true for all circumstances of a similar sort. The act of making such comparisons is sometimes referred to as "comparing apples and oranges." a fetus is not a plant. It's entirely different and thus my opponents argument is invalid. I hope that sufficiently answers your question about why I don't care about "killing" fruits and vegetables. and finally, my opponent states that leaving a baby who can think in the hands of someone else is much worse than killing a baby who can't. I thought of a couple things this argument could mean. either he's arguing that while the human fetus is alive, it is not a person. for this I have a rather lengthy response. if this were the case, then they would have to recognize that what we would call consciousness does begin in the womb. (1) or perhaps he means the ability to exercise "rational attributes? One should also consider simply the logical and very real consequences if a "person" is defined only in terms of the actual exercising of "rational attributes" or of "sentience." What would this mean for the following list of adult human beings with diminished "rational attributes": e.g., the mentally ill, the mentally disabled, the depressed elderly, Alzheimers and Parkinsons patients, drug addicts, alcoholics and for those with diminished "sentience," e.g., the comatose, patients in a "vegetative state," paraplegics, and other paralyzed and disabled patients, diabetics or other patients with nerve or brain damage, etc.? Would they then be considered as only human beings but not also as human persons? Would that mean that they would not have the same ethical and legal rights and protections as those adult human beings who are considered as persons? Is there really such a "split" between a human being and a human person? My opponent once again attacks my political stance as a republican (as if that somehow makes my arguments hold less weight.) and proceeds to say that babies are expensive and the rich are "driving the poor mad" in stating this, my opponent has made the illogical argument (and black and white fallacy) by assuming that the only option is terminating the pregnancy or raising the child yourself. next my opponent makes a point about the rich driving the poor mad. I have shown that my opponents likely position ( and as he hasn't stated his true position if I was incorrect) is not only invalid but immoral as it has destroyed the lives (and yes, taken the lives) of millions upon millions of people. He has also provided no evidence to support his positions (any of them) almost everything he's said has been either an assumption or a fallacy. Hopefully this hasn't terribly reminded you of infinite babbling. (1)(2)https://www.princeton.edu......