Abortion is wrong and bad

I thank Con that he reminds everyone this debate is not based on the two sides ("pro-choice" and "pro-life"). Now, for Round 4! First off I would like to make clear once and for all that any life form, whether human/fetus or not, is viable to having every right to their full life potential no matter what. All other arguments cease for me, in this round, because I know that abortion is murder. Randy Alcorn once said [1] "Even if abortion were made easy or painless for everyone, it wouldn't change the bottom-line problem that abortion kills children." Now, why is it that (the US) protects the unborn animals of some endangered species [2] but will abort unborn humans without giving second thought? Every argument I see that tries to defend abortion "rights" fails because it is illogical. My opponent calls me a hypocrite because I state plainly that any form of human life, whether born, unborn, is still an individual human and has the right to live that life, just like you and I. Con commits straw man fallacy when explaining how I must "surgically remove one sperm...directly insert that into the female egg for every couple that wants to have a child." This debate is meerly about abortion. That being said, I stand my ground as to why the stages of unborn life dealt with during abortion, as per adversion, should always be protected (because) they are humans. Secondly, I think you all should know what "fetus" actually means. In Greek it means "little one" or "offspring." I wonder why. Con says that the reason an unborn child is not a human is because the fetus does not have some of the the "characteristics" of a human yet. "If I were to remove a fetus from a pregnant mother, should this be described as human? Maybe twenty or so weeks in it could, but before that it does not. It does not have the characteristics that a human has at that point, so should not be described as human." But, at any rate, if it is a form of life, it deserves to be born in this world, even though he cannot speak for himself himself. Looking at Con's argument from a different perspective, I can explain how it may be offensive to some people. What about the children born with disabilities? They are still considered 'human,' despite that they might not have "all the characteristics." I am not debating that a fetus is a potential human, I'm arguing that a fetus is a human with potential. For this reason we should be protecting all rights for the lives of these humans with potential. Have you ever seen the movie "The Giver"? In a scene or two it gives you an idea of the true definition of abortion, in a sense, because they "get rid of" unwanted babies by surgical murder which they name "Release." It shows how we sugercoat the meaning of abortion and make it sound like disposing a fetus is no problem and nothing that should concern anyone. But of course, this is not true. I'm not trying to bring this debate into politics of this sort, but since I am against abortion I am against the law that allows humans to be "disposed" of. Con assumes that "pain may not be felt during abortions of certain methods." This is not a valid argument because, indeed, abortions currently are nearly all done causing pain to the unborn baby. [3] However, I am no longer debating with this tactic (see my second paragraph). He also asserts that "women giing birth usually die of severe bleeding usually after childbirth, infections, high blood pressure during pregnancy, or complications from delivery." This is false because pregnancies do not "usually" end that way. Abortion may save mothers lives but they abolish the unborn human's potential. So the tough question is, which is worse? Killing a halfway grown woman or a child who would have a full life ahead? More rebuttals: "The baby might choose not to live." Now Con's trying to explain how abortion "is justified killing due to our lack of knowing what the baby wants." This is such an insane assumption because it isn't possible for a baby to be so unenthusiastic about life that he'd rather die. The woman/parents have full control over the unborn baby's body and life, and this is only because the body is helpless and needs support, but there should not be a choise for them to make since the baby has full rights to live. "My sources were in the comments and keeping the child, enduring the dangers of birth, and then give the child away to foster care where it takes up tax payer dollars, lives on welfare, and is most likely to be a criminal and danger to society." Con assumes three things here: 1) that welfare is a bad thing, 2) that money is more important than the life of the baby, and 3) that the baby will most likely be a threat to society and criminal. This is something to consider. Abortion equals death while life equals oppurtunity, no matter how "bad" it might be," and you should let the child decide whether he wants to live or not once he can do so for himself. Until then, the--for lack of a better term--"underdeveloped" human has full rights to life. Conclusion: This has been a good debate despite Con not being able to respond right away. I conclud that all life matters. Individual rights are what they are and we can't sugarcoat that. Abortion takes away a human's right to life and is, therefore, wrong and bad. [1] http://www.thegospelcoalition.org... [2] http://www2.epa.gov... [3] http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...