Abortion should be banned

Onto the args. First she makes this very strange assumption that abortion in cases of potential injury to he mother or child have no relevance in this round. First off, this is slightly abusive as this is saying that I'm not allowed to defend a desirable part of abortion. Secondly, she didnt address my observation that said I defend all types of abortion (which encompasses parent injury), so I must assume she is okay with it. Third, there was no reason given as to why we should not look at potential injuries. 1. She says killing an ant isnt murder because murder is killing a human. Technically, I was just using murder as a lax term to mean the killing of anything, which could include an ant. But whether stepping on an ant is killing or murder isnt a big issue. The argument is that fetuses have the potential for humanity. So does sperm. If we're going to accept her logic that denying life to anything that can become a human is wrong, then that would justify saying that having protected sex is wrong because we are denying the opportunity of life. Obviously, we all know protected sex is good, not bad. So we reject this logic of "we must retain the potential for humanity". She says abortion is similar to killing mentally challenged people. Not really; the challenged person is alive, developed, and can function independently. The fetus is semi-alive, undeveloped, and incapable of most of, well, anything. I dont think you can compare the 2 with these vast differences. She says we are all a compilation of cells such as a fetus is. This is taking my argument a bit out of context, as I specifically said a fetus is "undeveloped" cells while people are not so. Despite what she believes, this is a big difference as the undeveloped cells in a fetus are what differentiates them from real people so much, in regards to size, functions, thought, etc. Thats why we dont treat them as real people, and thus dont feel the need to think of abortion as this terrible terrible thing. 2. Her main argument here is that we also force our belief on the fetus by having an abortion. But it looks like she can defeat this argument without my help on this one, as she points out that fetuses cannot make decisions and thus do not have beliefs. People with mental disabilities can indeed make decisions, and are thus vastly different from a fetus. They may not be the most sophisticated people in the world, but I would think that if you asked one of them if they want to be euthanized, they would say no. Assuming they knew what that meant. This is in contrast to the fetus, which cannot think or make decisions. Challenged people can also feel pain. Whether a fetus can is very debatable, so there's another difference between them and another reason abortion isnt necessarily wrong. She says that banning theft is also forcing beliefs on people. Wrong. Stealing is not a belief anyone considers good. Even robbers know that stealing is wrong, and as she herself points out, almost everybody knows this. This is not the case with abortion. The belief is roughly 50-50 or 60-40. Unless she can give me a source saying that 80-90% of people are against abortion, then my argument will stand that forcing the belief that abortion is bad on so many people is wrong. Furthermore, she does not address my argument about banning abortion being similar to religious wars, which we all know are wrong because people have died in them because one group of people thought it was right to force the other what to believe. I compared this obvious atrocity to banning abortion, and how that is telling you what you can and cannot do. Extend the argument that we should respect other people's decisions. Both pro lifers and pro choicers should do this. We dont force people to have abortions, so they shouldnt force us to not have them. Finally she says that having abortions can impact society, implying that people who were aborted may have been great people or cure cancer or something like that in an alternate reality. But, this works both ways. They may also have been murderers, generally unlikable people, or, the next Hitler *insert dramatic music*. So because this theory can support both sides, I propose that we abandon it and only focus on the direct implications of having an abortions, which are none, other than perhaps saving a mother's life who cannot safely have a baby. Thanks for continuing, I await the next round.