tobacco rights/abortion

Well, I'll start by answering your last question. and you were asking me to explain my view on the two issues, because you're saying that I'm doing the same thing you are only just reversed. Well this is the answer: Abortion is the taking of the life of a fetus, a human in its early stages. I don't think it should be the parents choice to take their, soon to be, child's life. That's not right. Especially because usually the reasoning behind it is because they just don't want to take responsibility. It's not fair to the child. I think that a fetus should have the right to life. That's my stand on that. Basically, the parent should not be able to choose to take the life of a developing baby (especially if it's just for birth control reasons). So I am not pro choice there. As for my stance on tobacco: firstly the people who are choosing to do it are adults who can think through and contemplate the consequences of their actions. I mean we're talking about adults and we aren't talking about the killing of an innocent life without their say. I'm not arguing that smoking can't be harmful to people other than the smoker, but if you're bothered by someone smoking nearby, then move (you aren't helpless like a fetus). The people who might be effected by second hand smoke are also adults who can think for themselves. I think that there should for sure be regulations on where you can smoke, but outlawing it completely isn't necessary, and could even have some unnecessary negative effects on society. Now, everyone is pro choice in some areas but not in others. The case I'm trying to make against you is that yours are backward. You are for in in a case where a helpless fetus is being killed, and for it in a case where the consequences would effect adults who can take care of themselves and would mostly effect the people who are choosing to do it. Which is fine if that's what they want to do to themselves. You said "(1) it is inconclusive as to whether (a) it knows that it is alive, and (b) that it can feel pain." A)Whether or not it knows it's alive is irrelevant. We know it's alive. And we know that this will someday be a human being. This would be someone's friend, or family member. They would have a life. Unfortunately they don't get a chance because their parents didn't think they were worth it. That's not right. The fact is, it is alive, we know it, and we should take care of it. That's its right. B) Actually, there is conclusive evidence that a baby can feel, and react to pain. Even so, You wouldn't feel pain either if someone came up behind you and shot you in the back of the head. This too is irrelevant. You close the paragraph by saying this "Lastly, if you can't trust someone to make the right decision with a abortion, can you really trust them as a parent?" Well, maybe not, but there are a ton of families who would love to adopt a healthy child (or unhealthy). Now I'll move on to smoking. I can definitely see your point about smoking effecting other people. This is a problem. The difference, as I kind of stated earlier is that the people being effected are able to take care of themselves. As for someone who smokes around their family, they need to use good judgement as to whether they should do that or not. If they have a family, then they need to be smart enough to know not to do it around their family. I understand some people aren't, but it's not the governments place to say whether or not they can do that around their family. There should be regulations on where people can smoke, but if you are on private property, then it's your choice. The government can't make every decision for people. Thank you for your good arguments and courtesy, I really enjoyed the debate. Thank you.