Abortion

Actually your first mistake occurs in the opening statement of this argument as I, and I quote, said "Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being." Because abortion only applies to fetus', it is clear through the transitive thought process the fetus and human being are one in the same. I don't know what mistake your talking about, but what you are saying is very wrong. Professor Diane V. Irving of Princeton University says this in his essay:"B. "Scientific" myths and scientific fact: Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacientsA533;and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths. Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortionsA533;and that is ridiculous!" Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beingsA533;they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a womanA533;s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate." https://www.princeton.edu... My opponent attacks my argument(Life is tough) by saying "doesn't mean the solution to dealing with our issues is mercy killing. Killing of an innocent is an unjust action and can never be justified." http://nakedlaw.avvo.com... 50% of couples between 20-24 are more likely to divorce. "The younger a person marries, the more likely it is they will get divorced. As it turns out, age plays a big role in determining a marriage's fate. Those who marry under the age of 20 have the highest rate of divorce. These couples are nearly 1.5 times as likely to get divorced as those who get married between the ages of 20 to 24 years old. Those who marry after the age of 25 are even less likely to get divorced." This source also says it is four times more likely to get a divorce if you are economically disadvantaged. "The most recent data suggests that the disparity has only gotten larger. Today, a full 42 percent of women having abortions live under the poverty line, and another 27 percent have incomes within 200 percent of the poverty line. Taken together, 69 percent of women who have abortions are economically disadvantaged. Given recent attacks on Planned Parenthood"Texas, for instance, has rejected federal funding of the organization entirely"this trend is likely to continue. One can only hope the expansion of health-care coverage"with the contraception mandate included"under the Affordable Care Act can repair the damage." http://prospect.org... Now, with all this evidence aside your going to make a child cope with this. "Generally, it is better for children to suffer a bad marriage than to cope with divorce. According to University of Michigan psychologist and divorce expert Neil Kalter, the misery of an unhappy marriage is less significant than the changes after a divorce. The children would rather their parents keep fighting and not get divorced (Marriage 64). Although this does not seem logical, it shows that children want their parents together at all costs. Also, contrary to popular belief, the alternative to most divorces is not life in a war zone (Zinmeister 30). In the vast number of divorces there is no strife or violence that could ruin a person"s childhood; the divorce is usually driven by a quest for "greener grass." These divorces almost always make the child worse off and create a number of unnecessary problems for the child. If parents would concentrate harder on working conflicts out rather than their own personal happiness, the children would be much better off."http://www.public.iastate.edu... My opponent has argued innocence. He has argued that abortion is murder. First of all a Princeton professor already settled the fact that the fetus is not an organism. If it was to live on its own, than it would be destroyed. It is not a living thing. You cannot classify it as one. But, if it was an organism in Con's world; Con is willing to put a couple through divorce, physiologically torture a kid, and he is willing to say that it is the moral thing to do. That is wrong. But, of course the fetus is not even a living organism. You can argue that as long as you want, but the science does not back Con. "In studies taken from coroners offices by two separate studies in Finland showed that women who received abortions were 6 to 7 times more likely to commit suicide. (They gathered this information by cause of death statements on the official coroners report)." We live in America. We are not the Finland people. We are not the British people. You can't just quote studies in different countries, and apply it to our people. My sources are in America. That is why they are different. My sources are more reliable, because they are based in America, rather than his studies which are based in Europe. "Heres another one. Teen girls were shown to be ten times more likely to attempt suicide after abortion than if they had carried the child to term. So yeah, abortion, if anything, statistically makes depression and suicide more apparent." This source is from Europe. Teen Moms get depressed even more when they have kids. They are at the time of raging hormones. Don't think that teen moms are alone. Husbands are with them too, because usually teens that keep the baby live in very conservative areas. The husband and the wife are 4 times more likely to divorce causing a child to wonder what it is like to have a decent family. But, if you want you can take the risk. By the way, Con's sources are from pro-life sites. His sources are completely biast. You cannot count those sources. Is Alveda Celeste King a scientist? Is she a professor? Does she have a PHD in human biology? No, she doesn't. She cannot be a worthy person trusted with explaining abortion. In conclusion, are you really going to take the risk, and let a child be physiologically torture? Are you really going to make a couple go through all that stress, and then in the end a divorce? Are you really even going to treat a fetus as a living organism? It is not. A Princeton professor solved that one for us. Are you going to trust a bunch of pro-lifers that are using their own illogical senses to conclude a problem that should be left in the scientific field? I will be the first one to say no. I will not let a child go through all of that. I will not trust a side that quotes countries that they don't even live in.