abortion is wrong

1)LOVE OF MOTHER: O.k. to argue your very first point. I hold to my argument about the sickness. What should it matter what the sickness is? either way, it would not be right to end the innocent childs life. I also hold to what i said about "I don't know why a cancerous women would be having sex" It is not inhumane what i said. She knew she was sick which was even worse. She still to the risk to have the child, and it should now be her responsibility to carry out her action. It's not about her having the sex. its about the effects of the sex. She is now going to have to take responsibility of what she brought into life. But throwing it away gives Should not be her decision. MY OPPONENT:"maybe the fetus is only 10 weeks old, can this technically be called a baby?" Yes it is a baby. he/she still has potential for life. he/she would be a living human being with thoughts and love and feelings just as any other human being. Denying The Child that privilige- no not privilige a better word for that would be freedom- would be unjust and wrong. And about you said with the martyr leaving behind his family. Isn't this his job? he has aceepted it before hand. It apllies to any situation he has to deal with, not just the death of the mother. 2) You say i was manipulating your words to make you sound cruel. I am sorry you feel this way, however that was not my intention. I was trying to argue from every angle i could to prove my point. MY OPPONENT "if the child is going to be born and live for a week because its got this illness which isn't curable, isn't it more cruel to make it live for that week of pain rather than having to go through the obvious emotional distress of an abortion?" How do you know for a fact that the child would be killed? Yes there is a chance. there is always a chance for any little thing to go wrong. But there is the chance of it going possitively as well. How many children survive disease all around the world every day? how many die? its a risk factor for sure, but why not take the risk of having the child survive to grow up and live his/her life? whichever that lifes directon goes is not for us to decide. It could go good or bad.But because theyre is the liklihood of it going bad, that means we should take it away from them? If that's the case then why not just kill everyone out on the streets who is living a healthy life? to suggest that would be cruel as anyone would know. Again i am not minipulating your words. I did not use a quote on that part. I am going to argue every angle of the situation there though for my side. MY OPPONENT:"serious cases whereby the child wouldn't have any sort of fulfilled life then I feel it is more human to let that child rest before any pain is felt at all." O.K. I want to make a point here really strongly to help you better understand. Children such as these, children with less ability, or less capacity, are automatically assumed to be miserable and poor. However that is not case. I will make one example with Helen keler. She had every difficulty iin the world. But she learned. She lived through it. And she was happy. She wasn't constantly in a corner crying and suffering because her life was poor and pitiful. No, she was intellligent and willing and helpful. Her life was challenged, yes, but not impossible to live through. I will make another example with a small boy who was born with out arms or legs. I beleive his name was Colten. His mother had given him up, for reasons unknown. but Either way this boy, found a loving and peaceful family to take care of him. He learned how to swim, how to climb stairs, etc. he made the best of his life. He wasn't unhappy forever because he was born with dis-advantages. On several occasions, i am sure death was a big issue for him. Again Risk factor. But still obviously he had survived and he is not nessecarily unhappy because of these small dis-advantages. This applies to the same aspect of The child life or death being at risk when birth. No one can say this child will die for sure. Not even a doctor. They can give you results leading to the probabability of death, even a high one at that. But To instantly jump to the conclusion that the childs death is the first priority to everyone? How can any happiness come from this decision? Yes the child may die given certain circumstances, but then there wouldn't be any more level of grief for the child than already attained. At least the child had a CHANCE at life. A chance at happiness. 3) This argument is simple. Is there not child abusing parents everywhere? This is where the law steps in and handles these situations. Yes it is miserable, but applies in no way to the childs desicion. The parents SHOULD be responsible and give the child up for adoption. However in some cases they may not always choose that desicion. If they know they can't take care of the child, But however do anyway, That would be saved for an argument on parental responsibility, Not abortion. though i do see why you would bring that up. Adopted children- MY OPPONENT "there's always going to be something missing in their life some questions that cannot be answered like "why didn't my mummy want me " which could eat a child inside out." Yes i am sure the question would arise to the child about there parents reasoning for leaving them behind. But should that imply that there whole entire life from that point on will be truly and utterly miserable? To the point where they should not even Have the right to live? Like they don't have every oppurtunity to progress in life as any other? Things such as marriage, and friendship, and their own legacy of children perhaps. No, there is no reason for them not to have those every equal oppurtunites at happiness, Just because there "mummy and daddy" gave them up. As if the child would be trying to commit suicide just to preserve his emotions. These mothers are making that desicion for them. They don't even get the CHOICE to choose happiness or death of bitterness. They assume the latter and just kill the child, which is utterly wrong and cruel. Those who claim to be pro-choice, look on every aspect of the ideal pro-'choice'. Respect the the childs decision as well. The mother got a chance at life. She got too experience happiness and sadness. Why deny the child of this same freedom? RAPE- O.K. So the mother got raped. She doesn't want to take responsibility of the child . Then dont! give the child up for adoption or close family member. Carry out through the pain and emoitional turmoil, to be humane. Yes, it was not fair and you didn't choose this decision, But don't act out of selfishness. Is it easier to murder a potential life, then to just Wait out the nine long hard months. You have to ask yourself if your ethics are correct if you negate that. Would you, Could you, risk a little bit of pain, to save a life? MOTHER SEXUALLY ABUSED AS CHILD- This one is quite simple.first of all children cannot bear children.second of all SO WHAT?Any one old enough to think should be the one making the decision about the abortion. ABUSIVE PARENTING- i have argued this previously above IN ANSWER TO YOUR STORY- Obiously if most people would say yes and affirm, then that is the the correct thing to do. Not all people would choose this path because of selfishness you say. If that is the case, then us as people need to notice the flaw in ourselves.If what you say about selfishness being an issue is an any correlation to abortion, I am not manipulating anyone by saying this an issue with abortion. I would argue more on the subject but i am just about out of remaining characters, so for this round I would like to leave any viewers with this simple knowledge.Responsibilty need be take placewith anyone who bears it. This should be anyone with the mind to be able to make decisions. f you can make a decision and know what decision your making, explore every possibilty of that decision before you decide whether good or bad