Abortion should be legal

I shall conclude now quickly to conclude the debate: My opponent has not concluded that a fetus is an alive human being. He has only provided definitions which encompass animals and plants as well, in one case including non-life. Now, ignoring how my opponent anthropomorphised the government, there has not been a case in which a few week old feotus could live independently of the parent. Saying independent meaning not relying on them, being self-reliant for life. The quality of life is not of consequence under this definition, just the ability to survive. Because of this, my first contention of a bunch of cells not being alive is secure, and explain why: I shall repeat the argument is a strawman; it is taking a morphed viewpoint of my position, possibly from a lack of understanding, possibly from lack of will to understand, that the father being an emotional tug, and the father being a person which is productive. Let's rewrite the analogy to include the points that a) a child is not productive until the age of 16 and b) the child is a drain on costs c) this horribly reduces the life quality of the parent d) the parent is of the large minority stake (over 25%) of mothers who become pushed over the income threshold. and e) the doctors will not look after your father; you will have to. Oh, and remove f) because it is a an emotional tug based on morality of doing things for monetary gain, and no other use (it is opportunity cost lost by a parent, rather than actual money): If your father lapses into a coma, doctors say he will fully recover in 9 months with extreme damage, which will take another sixteen years for him to fully recover, where you will have to feed him, bathe him etc. and do everything for him, including work. This will drastically cut your income, and you will have to downsize, if not to a council flat, and not be able to give your child a good education. Oh! And we're not going to look after him: it's your problem. Bye! Is it really the responsibility of the mother to sacrifice herself and the son/daughter because the daughter is deemed as "potential"? That potential is completely wasted by the socio-economic implications. I shall reexplain how a computer is a useless tool; without an enforcer, or someone to write a program to be run when inputs are made, the computer does not make outputs. A computer needs inputs to output. A human being does not have an I/O system as such, because it is proactive as well as reactive. A fetus has an I/O system, and does nothing unless has a command given to it, equivalent to a command on a computer. I shall reiterate the socio-economic iterations however; the status of the fetus is a peripheral issue. Regardless of whether a fetus is a human being or has rights, women will have abortions anyway, even if it means breaking the law or risking their lives. Even women who believe that abortion is murder have chosen to get abortions, and will continue to do so (Medical World News. 1987. Abortion Clinic's Toughest Cases. pp 55-61. March 9, other citations given previously). "That's why we should leave the decision up to women's moral conscience, and make sure that they are provided with safe, legal, accessible abortions. Because ultimately, the status of a fetus is a matter of subjective opinion, and the only opinion that counts is that of the pregnant woman. For example, a happily pregnant woman may feel love for her fetus as a special and unique human being, a welcome and highly anticipated member of her family. She names her fetus, refers to it as a baby, talks to it, and so on. But an unhappily pregnant woman may view her fetus with utter dismay, bordering on revulsion. She cannot bring herself to refer to it as anything other than "it," much less a human being. She is desperate to get rid of this unwelcome invader, and when she does, she feels tremendous relief. Both of these reactions to a fetus, and all reactions in between, are perfectly valid and natural."(Joyce Arthur) My opponent is pushing the idea that an embryo is scientifically and factually life, and has not justified it, except by attacking my argument and using rhetoric. I fear the false politican and the statesman of Gorgio would be an apt explanation of the situation. The opposition's mathematics is flawed: A -- fallacious, a flaw in logic. For example, misleading vividness, or a strawman. B -- This is a turn. The cost to the father justifies MY position further, thank you. C -- You fail to accept it. 5 -- Humanity's intrinsic value is not required to be proven; rather, it needs to be proven to exist in fetuses, which has not been done. 6 -- A drain is, in this metaphor, something that takes without giving; this is a point that has value once we accept that we have to reason to defend a clump of cells. Point A is an argument from inability to read, I'll be honest, you've just been bluntly insulting me. I specifically have been referring to British citations, and using seperate citations to clarify US figures. If you cannot comprehend a country different from the US, then please, go outside it. i) mentally retarded, coma victims etc. is misleadingly vivid. The number is so minimal, it is negligible. ii) point two is so ridiculous once you've realized that the reason 50% of people don't pay tax is because they don't earn enough; this is making things WORSE. Explain how adding a catalyst to poverty is good in a community where so many people are on their earning threshold. Point 10 has no citation for the birth pill figure, which was disputed. The citation is a vague website, after checking said site for ten minutes, I decided that it would be easier to google the statement and make a cross-reference. I also included, unlike my opponent, clerical failures, that is, people "doing it wrong". Also, the mathematical citation on how to do it was referring to an invalid technique (Conditional probability means the two events are true, where one is already given as true. If you actually used the technique cited, you'd have realised that.) I have given substantial proof to the point that Cells are not alive. I have disproven the statement that abortions have no impact; a lack of legal abortions have a truly horrific impact on a community, and finally the lack of negative impact meaning it is a legal option has not been challenged. Thank you, vote for choice.