Abortion

BABY OR NOT? Yes it is a baby. he/she still has potential for life. he/she would be a living human being with thoughts and love and feelings just as any other human being. Denying The Child that privilige- no not privilige a better word for that would be freedom- would be unjust and wrong. The second that couple decided to have unprotected sex, was the second they put a life in motion. and please state some some sources of those 'facts' about egg fertilization. because i believe that is a total hoax. but if you want to argue scientifically, scientists have also claimed that the fetus is alive.If you do not know this already, you can research this. Embrio's have been proven to be alive. And either way, even if the they weren't, the card has already been pulled. The baby had that oppurtunity at having a life the second the mother was pregnant. There would still have been a life produced whether living at the moment or not. The second that mother gets pregnant, is the second, that potential child is alive. So yes, I would still say that is murder. CHILDS LIFE- MY OPPONENT-"But, if you want to think about it from the child's point of view, the child will feel like it was a mistake everyone hates. Personally I would rather die than think that my own mother didn't even want me." Let me point out specifically the words my opponents used were 'me presonally'. there's always going to be something missing in their life some questions that cannot be answered like "why didn't my mummy want me " which could eat a child inside out." Yes i am sure the question would arise to the child about there parents reasoning for leaving them behind. But should that imply that there whole entire life from that point on will be truly and utterly miserable? To the point where they should not even Have the right to live? Like they don't have every oppurtunity to progress in life as any other? Things such as marriage, and friendship, and their own legacy of children perhaps. No, there is no reason for them not to have those every equal oppurtunites at happiness, Just because there "mummy and daddy" gave them up. As if the child would be trying to commit suicide just to preserve his emotions. These mothers are making that desicion for them. They don't even get the CHOICE to choose happiness or death of bitterness. They assume the latter and just kill the child, which is utterly wrong and cruel. Those who claim to be pro-choice, look on every aspect of the ideal pro-'choice'. Respect the the childs decision as well. The mother got a chance at life. She got too experience happiness and sadness. Why deny the child of this same freedom? MY OPPONENT- "This topic is so conditional that you can't say 'It was the mothers own fault to decide to go out and get pregnant with out protection.' You can be on the pill and use a condom, there is still a chance of getting pregnant. However slim, there is a chance." ok hun, if he has a condom, and she's on the pill and she still gets pregnant, she's obviously gotten around... however, even if what you claim is true, theres a little thing i like to call responsibility. now that she is pregnant, she holds another life in the palm of her hands. She can easily choose to carry it out, witch would be a win-win situation. the mother lives, and the child lives. However, out of selfishness, she chooses not to, and by doing so, ends another life. This is not taking responsibility. MY OPPONENT- "A mother has free agency. She should be allowed to choose. And the consequences should not be determined by the state. Whatever God one believes in or your own guilt is by far a worse punishment." It is true a mother has free agency. But that doesn't make it right. When debating abortion, you come to a conclusion of morality. Morality = right/wrong. Is ending the baby's life moral? where is his/her free agency? They are denied to ever have an oppurtunity to live. Witch means they are denied to ever have kids of their own, or to get married, or ever experience happiness. Is this fair? where is the justice in this? The mother can have all these same oppurtunities, but the child cannot? you must ask yourself now if this is a good thing. MY OPPONENT- "Not to mention the mothers who give birth because they are given no other option might go beat the child they were forced to give life." abusive parenting is not an issue with abortion either. There are parents all over america who are abusive. This is where the law comes in. The law prevents child abuse, and just because the parents didn't want the child and abuse him/her, doesn't mean that its right. This whole debate is based on how the mother decision is wrong. By telling me that she is going to make wrong decisions and abuse the child, you are only strengthening my case. again if they dont want to deal with the child, there is adoption. SELFISHNESS- MY OPPONENT-" I want the option to be selfish sometimes! Everyone does" Since this is now a debate about morality, do you think that being selfish is moral? and how are you taking responsibility by being selfish? If that is the case, then us as people need to notice the flaw in ourselves.If what you say about selfishness being an issue is an any correlation to abortion, I am not misjudging anyone by saying this an issue with abortion. OTHER ISSUES- MY OPPONENT- "And if you take away the option of abortion some of these people who were forced into this situation people might start doing abortions unprofessionally to make a quick dollar. Lets face it, it will happen. And if its not professionally done bad things can happen, its guaranteed to happen, as it does with any medical procedure." OKay, so just because people doing un-professional abortions is bad, means they should go get an official one? wheres the difference? I am arguing that abortion is bad in all cases. even if done unprofessionally. I would like to again thank my opponent for this debate. It should be fun, and i look forward to your next argument (amby) ;)