Abortion is wrong

Pro answers my hypothetical situation with an analogy that is barely relevant. Asking me to murder some random man with a handgun is not the same as a mother choosing to terminate her pregnancy for these reasons: Other than the parents who are merely expecting the child, yet have not even met it, the fetus has not touched anyone's lives and established social connections which would create a void when it is lost. No one will miss it. Pro-lifers try to make to argument that the parents have created some spiritual connection or something, but the truth is they can just choose to get pregnant again. Modern technology allows you an ultrasound picture, but this isn't the same as actually interacting with it. Parents, of course, feel a loss when a pregnancy is failed, but this is nothing like the loss of an actual person. Consider the difference between if your 10 year old boy is suddenly abducted by some man in a park. Is this comparable to losing a pregnancy? Why not? The answer is that the difference between your 10 year old boy and a 10 week old fetus is that your boy is a person and the fetus is not. Murdering the man with the handgun erases an infinitely complex human personality. The man has (potentially) a family, friends, co-workers that depend on him... He is afraid of death, as you can tell when you point the gun at him. He is capable of begging for his life, even. He is a result of years worth of human interaction, learning, and growing. He is a much more valuable entity than a bundle of cells in a womb. We may be able to see the beginnings of life in the womb by using extremely sophisticated equipment that can measure electrical activity and such, but these phenomena are not adequately explained by experts. What does an electrical current running through the fetus' brain mean? A thought? Emotion? Or is it just an electrical current that really doesn't mean anything? This type of evidence does not compare to looking at a man's terror-stricken face while you point a gun at him. "It is wrong by the moral standard created by the Creator." As I predicted before the debate started, Pro's argument is too weak to defend, without invoking superstition. To this I might as well reply that the Flying Spaghetti Monster says this is OK. The FSM is the Christian God's superior. "Many of us would agree that killing innocent human life is morally wrong." I don't. A batch of sperm is innocent human life. I say: let's not kill innocent people instead. Just because a sperm hits an egg and splits into two cells doesn't mean that that 2 celled organism now has full rights under the US Constitution and that two cells has just as much value as my life. The absurdity of this argument can only be sustained by superstition, as I previously alluded to. The only reason we are having this discussion is because science has paved the way into the womb and explained to the religious people how conception works. When you take science and then wrap it with superstition, then you only have to unwrap it again when science makes another breakthrough. Christianity is like a layer of dust that falls upon scientific achievements after science has paved a new path. This is utterly clear in cosmology, as the Pope now embraces the Big-Bang theory. Why not just cut to the chase and get rid of superstition altogether? "What makes me human, and not an animal, is that I have a soul that will live on after I die." No, you don't. "we all have different experiences. So, according to him, some of us are more human than others. Also, if there isn't enough organism present, then tall and big people are more human than short and skinny people..." Extrapolating this out of my argument is nothing short of abuse. Fetus=no experience. Person=experience. The only way to try and quantify my argument in this manner is to say that someone who is older has more value, and someone who is younger has less value (less exp vs. more exp). To this I would tend to agree. This is the subject for another debate, however. I believe that once a child is born it has full human rights - they cannot be divided, they must be either given or not given. The 40 year old can choose to give his or her life for the child, because they have learned the value of self-sacrifice, but they cannot be compelled to. The child is also a sort of property of the parents, as well. The parents' emotional attachment and hopes and dreams for the child can be "weighed in" to the child's worth, offsetting its lack of experience, talents, and emotional development. If the parents have no hopes and dreams for the child, are not emotionally attached, and are unwilling to raise the child after birth, than this can be factored into the worth of an unborn fetus and used to justify its death, assuming there is a good reason to kill it (for instance, its birth causing the death of the mother). "I have a few examples. I newborn that dies a week after birth. Or a paralyzed, blind, deaf person. Are none of these humans? Again, experience does not decide what is human." So what if a newborn dies a week after birth? I assume you are trying to say "what's the implication of killing a newborn?" To this I would refer you to my previous paragraph, as I have outlined supplementary values for newborns based on the parents' attachment and plans for the child. Again, the child has passed the official (legally, morally, and practically) threshold of human personhood: birth. It has achieved life, and deserves to live it. The values I put on people that fetus' lack (experience, emotion, etc) are begun immediately after birth when the doctor smacks it on the a55 and it starts crying. People with inhibited senses lack none of my attributes. They have personality, experience, social connections, have achieved birth, feel pleasure and pain... You have no argument here. "Plus, being human should not be dependent on a mother." Really. Make a child without one. In fact, your 15 years old. Go out and get a job and an apartment and tell your mother you don't need her, and you never have. She'll laugh at you and send you to your room you little brat! "So what about orphans?" Orphans have achieved ALL of my requisites, save the hopes and dreams of the parents, perhaps. Often the parents still want the orphans to do well, but they simply cannot make it happen themselves. Orphans are nothing more than unfortunate people who started being raised but were given up on at some point. Other parents will raise them, no doubt. As full fledged BORN people, they have a certain right to compel others to help them. "what about the blind, lame, mute, deaf man?" Already addressed thoroughly. "Or the one antisocial person?" No man is an island. The antisocial person only chooses to downplay his or her social side, but meets all other requisites for personhood. Even a person on a desert island needed years of relationship with a parent to become self-sufficient. "How about a person in a coma?" This is a euthanasia problem, not abortion. I say if a person is born into permanent coma, their rights to life are on layaway until the parents make a call on it. If they say it lives, then they give it full human rights. Who pays the bills for the equipment is another problem. "The difference between a fetus and a newborn is not how much it interacts." I say it is. Among the many other differences I listed. "Oh, and it is known that a fetus can recognize a mother's voice." Yeah so can my computer. "They also kick." Donkeys kick, who cares. They aren't people. "OK, well your argument back-fired." - "I don't see it." The voters will, don't worry. "By the way, Vikings..." Yeah I think you've already lost the conduct points for this debate with your ill-placed sticks at me at the end of the rounds, although I made one as well in this round. your S&G is certainly going to fail as well...