Abortion Should Be Abolished

Thanks for responding. "Illegality is a collective social decision, whereas believe is a personal assumption and frowning is a facial expression. Therefore legislation must be the will of the many and not the edict of the few and certainly not based on assumptions or facial expression." Good point. Your first three paragraphs are very compelling, but I believe that they have one blaring flaw. Yes, I do emotionally feel for the fetus that are being killed. But do I still prevent concrete facts on why it is murder, which is agreed upon wrong? Yes. Laws are based on negative impacts, as my previous opponent has said. So, my argument structure is that I must show these negative impacts of abortion. However, "negative" implies a moral decision. So, what one person might see as a positive, another might see as a negative. This is of course why many people vote, so that the collective and mostly agreed upon moral is placed in action. So, I am using the most common Western Civilization moral to prove this is wrong. Again, that's why I'm focusing on why abortion is murder. If I prove that, then the discussion is over. Murder, no matter where you're at in the West, is most likely frowned upon, and is illegal. Therefore, morals and emotions do not play a role (or should not play a role) in this discussion. I am focusing on already clearly defined morals and laws to disprove abortion. "I am no more inclined to accept the subjectivity of a Ph. D. than I am my opponents." I inquire you to read the full text, if you have not already, because what I showed was only the thesis of the argument, while the rest explains and destroys myths with facts and using morals and laws that are already put in place to disprove abortion, like I am doing now. I suggest that before you try to discredit her, you read the entire page. And, if you did read the entire page, then this is an un-factual lunge to discredit her. "Abortion is a possibility and there will always be people who seek to have abortions. Therefore abortions might as well be carried out safely and legally." Just because people seek out something, that does not mean that it "might as well" be carried out safely and legally. We could fill in the blank with anything, murder, theft, but for the example, I'm going to use rape. EXAMPLE: Rape is a possibility and there will always be people who seek to rape women. Therefore, rape might as well be carried out safely and legally. Now, you may say that the difference between abortion and rape is that in abortion, "no one" is hurt, but in rape, there are negative impacts. So, I will again prove that abortion is murder. First of all, instead of giving euphemisms for abortion like the left, such as "it's just a bundle of cells", I will give the reader and my opponent a chance to look at the staggering resemblances of the fight of abortion versus the fight of slavery. Let's begin. CASE 1: ABORTION: "women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies" -http://www.bbc.co.uk... SLAVERY: The slaves are on my land, and I have the right to what I can and cannot do to them. CASE 2: ABORTION: "the right to abortion is vital for individual women to achieve their full potential" -http://www.bbc.co.uk... SLAVERY: If I get rid of these slaves, then the production on my plantation will go down, and I cannot make any money for my family! CASE 3: ABORTION: If you make me keep the fetus, then both of us will suffer in our lives! SLAVERY: If the slaves leave, then I will not be able to make money, and civilization around me can't get the food I give them! "When I die it will not be death that I fear, it will be the thought of non-existence. At what point does a foetus become aware of it's own existence and therefore fear death? One last point for Pro's consideration. What real loss is one foetus to an already overpopulated planet? Despite abortion the human population grows exponentially. If we base decisions solely on morality, isn't it fair to propose that unnaturally prolonging life, is just as immoral as extinguishing life prematurely." Firstly, is the determination of life self-consciousness? Again, take a brain-dead person! It is not legal for me to walk over to the hospital and kill him/her! Also, can I kill a schizophrenic for not being able to distinguish reality? Or someone who can't fear death? Can I kill them all? And finally, there are ways to stop overpopulating on this planet. Killing already fertilized human beings should not be one of them. In fact, they should be the last ones to be considered to "kill off", because they are technically the most innocent humans on the planet. And, sorry for assuming your politics, but I'm guessing you're anti-2nd amendment. If so, what if I made this argument: "One last point for Con's consideration. What real loss is 96 Americans to an already overpopulated planet? Despite guns, the human population grows exponentially. If we base decisions solely on morality, isn't it fair to propose that unnaturally prolonging life, is just as immoral as extinguishing life prematurely." It makes no sense, because abortion is murder, which is collectively immoral, which should be abolished. Good luck.