Abortion is a moral for women under the age of twenty one.

Since Pro forfeited, I will now rebut his opening argument. Morally permissible: Your idea of what the phrase "morally permissible" means is confusing. I had to read it several times to figure out what you meant. Did you make up this definition? Morality isn't about what you can get away with. Even if it was, do you really think it's morally permissible to have an abortion JUST because you're under 21? Sure, a bad situation is more likely if you're under 21, but there is no reason to have an abortion simply because you're under 21. There are plenty of situations (or even all depending on your views) where abortion isn't necessary even if you are under 21. It is up to you to prove that abortion is ALWAYS moral if you're under 21. Anyway, your resolution never said morally permissible. It said that abortion is moral (or "a moral"), but it didn't say morally permissible. There's a difference. For your next point, you have given no sources showing that the judgmental part of the brain is finished around 21. In fact, I looked this up, and your "judgmental portion of the brain" idea doesn't even appear to exist. Personally, I believe people are capable of deciding for themselves much earlier than that. Isn't a 16 year old capable of being responsible enough? I don't see why not. Also, even if the judgment section actually does finish around 21, wouldn't it make more sense for abortion ABOVE 21 to be legal and below to be illegal? This would prevent 16 year olds from making bad moral decisions concerning abortion that they couldn't possibly understand at their age (according to you), and they could instead give the child up for adoption. Most importantly, this would teach kids to be more responsible, and they will hopefully carry on these responsibilities into their adulthood. Abortion prevents life from being put into a bad situation... by killing it instead? That makes no sense. Do you think that the baby is reincarnated into a good situation or something? Once something's dead, it's dead. It has lost its chance at life. If the mother had chosen to let it live, do you honestly think that the child in its overall life would wish he was dead? Being alive is almost always better then being dead, even if you are in a bad situation. Hardly anyone would walk up to their mom and say "I wish you had aborted me." This argument is very weak and very wrong. So, is it moral to put a child in a bad situation? Compared to the alternative, absolutely. Also, you can't make it illegal for someone to have a child. That would of course go strongly against many people's morals and beliefs (pro-lifers especially). The amount of people that give up their kids for adoption is irrelevant. The point is that more people should do this instead of abortion, not how many people currently do it. Lastly, there is no legitimate reason to say that a baby doesn't count as a human just because it's in the first trimester. The baby grows throughout the pregnancy without a significant point where it can be marked as human, other than conception. Thus, humans should be considered human at conception. Also, if you use this as one of your arguments and you're saying abortion is moral in the first trimester, shouldn't it also be moral for those over 21? Your argument isn't consistent. Since Pro forfeited this round, he can of course rebut all previous arguments, as well as conclude. Don't forfeit.