Abortion is immoral and the destruction of life.

All your rebuttals are wrong.Firstly I shall discuss the issues you bring up in your round one debate, then the new 'A5' raised in round two as well as countering your rebuttals.IRRELEVANT A#1: Life starts the moment the sperm meets the egg, a cell is alive, thus your determination of when life starts is truly irrelevant for every cell is split up (hence killed) in order to reproduce via mitosis, it is how we grow, old cells die to produce newer cells in larger quantity. The heart is merely one organ made of many living cells thus every cell was alive even before it began 'beating'. there is nothing special about the heartbeat.NOT EVEN AN ARGUMENT FOR PRO A#2: You state that it is immoral and the destruction of life. How is it not being murder even deserving of being your second argument? It's not even relevant for your side of the debate.Need for clarification A#3: What exactly is your point here? The doctor hurts the foetus? Does the foetus even know it exists? Can it even consciously register its pain?IRRELEVANT A#4: Yes, there are alternatives to abortion. Yes there is the option of adoption. However, this is not a valid argument to prove that abortion is immoral, only that it is one of many alternatives, not that it in itself is immoral.THE HYPOCRISY ALMOST MADE ME LAUGH A#5: "The destruction of life is immoral" Have you ever heard of the meat industry? The vegetable industry? the food industry? The cases of transplant where a pig is killed for a heart? The self-defence laws regarding a murderer being found not guilty if it was done in self-defence? Every single part of a human society displays that if we benefit, taking life is not necessarily immoral, your point is so ridiculously reliant on emotion that it throws all logic out of the window. The fact that you followed up the statement "The destruction of life is immoral" with the remark "Even if a person or group of people benefits from that destruction" Shows me how ignorant you are. Are you saying all wars, all police who shoot the criminal to death due to weapon raising and perhaps all people who put down their dog to save its suffering are immoral? Well then you surely have a great burden of proof on your part.Countering RebuttalsC#1: "A fetus can begin feeling pain as early as 20 weeks." there is no more sign of a foetus showing pain than there is an ant, and believe me when you step on an ant it writhes in agony, even runs faster to overcome the pain, thus are you suggesting the foetus is equal to an ant? There is no evidence that bacteria don't feel pain, should we stop all acts of hygiene? You then go on to say "If a living person is unconscious, unreasoning, unmotivated, uncommunicative, and unaware; they still have a right to life." Well no they don't. The issue with a four to five year old is that the duty of the parent is to save it by law. The issue of the person under anesthesia is that the surgeon has the duty to save this person's life, duty by profession and duty by law. It is the same with any scenario you can give me regarding a person in such a helpless state, any medic has a duty thus it is not about morality but about legal and professional duty to save a person's life. Also this doesn't even slightly succeed in countering my point that a foetus is not a person.C#2: Someone at my work is not the issue, the virus is. Thus killing the virus is ethical and hence I try to do it (usually by merely leaving my immune system to do the job for me). It is totally different when the foetus itself is causing the physical deterioration and pain. A baby is out of the body, not a part of it so you can't really compare the two.C#3: You have a burden of proof to prove that all wars are immoral and that governments of all nations that ever went to war were morally incorrect to do so. You also have to prove that bacterium have a right to life which we violate by using soap. If you can't prove this then there is no intrinsic right to life.C#4: It's not immoral. It's just better than the alternative scenario, often in places where the woman is burdened with a raped baby in a place of extreme poverty.C#5: Rape is related to this debate. Nowhere in your conditions for debate did you state that rape was not included. I Think you should concede this rebuttal and try again.C#6: I think you should research father's leaving the mother alone with the baby, as is very common in less economically developed regions of this world. The mother is often left with either aborting the baby or raising it in poverty, not all countries allow adoption in poor areas, especially rural ones.C#7: I think you didn't read my point properly. I shall repeat it. There is a peculiar double standard being applied by opponents of abortion. The dignity of the fetus is glorified, while the dignity of the child-rearer is seemingly ignored and even trampled. This is particularly concerning when more men appear to support abortion than woman; it appears that men are more willing to trample the child-bearer (a woman) than the child. Read it this time and please realise why this is a strong point countering the false concept of the immorality of abortion.C#8: Condoms that break or have even the smallest tear also often led to unplanned pregnancy. Causes of condom damage include improper use, inadequate use of a water-based lubricant, using condoms past the expiration date, improper storage. Jewellery, fingernails, and other objects may create tiny tears in condoms that render them ineffective. If condoms are your choice in contraception, make sure to use a vaginal spermicide to decrease your risk of unplanned pregnancy should condom damage occur. For a given individual, it’s difficult to know why her birth control might have failed. Skipping pills is certainly a common reason. But some people also metabolize the pill more quickly than others, which results in the medication being cleared more quickly from the body. Certain medications, particularly the tuberculosis-treatment drug rifampin, can potentially interfere with pill metabolism. Body weight could also have an effect. Barbieri says that birth control pills are not tested on women who are obese, and some observational studies of women taking the pill have detected a slightly higher failure rate in those women.[1]How do you justify these cases of failure? Stop thinking that contraception is 100% effective, it is not. If you are suggesting not having sex at all then you have a very big burden of proof as to why this should be the case.C#9: I didn't say the foetus doesn't come to term. I said foetus comes to term but would die from a severe disability.C#10: You didn't address my point. Poor woman are most susceptible to circumstances in which abortion is necessary. If abortion is illegal, therefore, this socio-economic group will be disproportionately affected. THEREFORE ABORTION IS NOT IMMORAL!C#11: This was merely a contention to oppose a possible one you would raise.C#12: If it can't be implemented as a law how can it be moral? Are you suggesting having an immoral law system? Sources:[1] http://www.boston.com...