Abortion (Is it OK) Part II

Thank-you for your participation in Round 2. Now for the third round. REBUTTALS: "While a fetus may be to some degree unique they are by no means smart or special." http://www.google.com... http://www.google.com... Tell me, if you had a child would you call him/her unique, special, or both? Every child is special, a. k. a. different from what is usual. Every child has it's own fingerprint, own personality, own ideas. Every child is immoral at times, every child commits good deeds and is moral, too. Also, every mother is proud of her child at times while sometimes shameful of her child. But despite all these factors, the mother who is entitled through sex to have kids, should give those little humans life no matter the circumstances. Whether it's unexpected or not, the mother should NOT "get rid" of her child(ren) because it is (1) her flesh she kills, (2) her pride she kills, and (3) a human she kills. Every fetus/baby is special and unique enough to have life-rights. "I've already explained that the argument that they could become something special is flawed." Maybe you have, but does THIS (meaning you, assuming that the body they are killing might not be a genius but rather someone awful), justify the taking away of the body's life? Making that kind of assumption is flawed: (A) you are taking rights away from a human who has NO say, (B) you are saying that 'because the human might be bad to the society it makes abortion seem better.' The fetuses can turn into any kind of person when it "becomes human" and there, by no means, is a reason you shouldn't give the human a chance at being "special." Besides that, it should be obvious that every human being is special in some way. Unless, of course, you don't believe that every human is equal and everyone should have equal rights! You have displayed discrimination and unfairness: right there in those two little sentences you gave. Discrimination against all those humans you have taken life-rights away from. Unfairness because these humans don't get a chance at life. "...but what if it would mean the woman would die?" 1st off, it is extremely rare that the mother would have to abort her baby in order to keep living. 2nd, we must define the 'death' of the mother exception as NOT the 'health' of the mother (just to make things clear). Philosophically, we might justify the decision to abort a life-threatening pregnancy this way: A) If the pregnancy continues, the mother will die. If the mother dies, the child will die. B) If the pregnancy is ended through abortion, the child will die, but the mother will live. In both instances the child will die. Since there is no way to save the child, but there is a way to save the mother, it is morally expedient (even necessary, perhaps) to save the mother by ending the life of the child"on the premise that is better to save one life, than to lose two. This conclusion has nothing to do with valuing one life over the other. It merely recognizes that since there is no way to save the baby, the most ethical course of action is to save the mother. Though such thinking may be ethically sound as it applies to the hypothetical conditions above, real-world circumstances are never so cut and dry. Quite simply, statement A is flawed. We can say with certainty that if the mother dies, the child will die, but we can never say with certainty that if the pregnancy continues, the mother will die. In order to be accurate, the beginning of Statement A would need to be re-rendered as such: A) If the pregnancy continues, the mother MIGHT die... Does the morality of aborting a life-threatening pregnancy depend on the severity of the threat to the mother? Is it a matter of percentages and probability? There have NOT been many cases of a 'will die' for the mother, and some that have been have turned out fine (i.e. mothers giving birth to health babies in their abdomen or an ectopic pregnancy). [http://www.abort73.com...] My opponent: "humans are not an endangered species." Just saying, but because I believe humans are more important than animals, I also have ventured to think that EVERY human is an endangered specie. We are each special AND unique, no matter how small (including fetuses because everybody knows they will become a human), and they should be protected MORE than animals who might be dying out. But sadly, this is not the case and people such as my opponent believe animals are more important saving than humans. "...the development of these feelings come after the overwhelming majority of abortions occur." My opponent also said that I must find "possible" arguments for the idea that fetuses may feel pain. Well, knowing there are also NO PICTURES GIVEN of what the fetuses look like when they are aborted, the public does not know (either) about what happens to the fetus/baby when the pill takes over. There are pictures on magazine covers of the damage wars and fights do to people in other countries, but alas, there are no front cover pictures of the damage and hurt and pain abortion causes babies (and their mothers, for that matter). This website might bring some awareness to the "feelings" fetuses have when getting killed. http://www.priestsforlife.org.... "In fact women don't regret their decision." Are you kidding me?! What your website says is exactly what they want you to think! It's a medical website that tells you abortion is harmless and the only after-effect is cramps! There are so many stories and testimonies of what abortion does to the mother. Here are a FEW stories: http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org... You've said that society has to be collapsing in order for abortion to be proven as devaluing life. All I can say is: everybody knows that abortion = murder in the womb. It literally zaps the newly-formed life right into utter darkness because one pill was taken by it's carrier (mother). Nobody LIKES to think of it that way but it's TRUE. There can be no rebuttal for knowing what abortion really does.