Abortion is Wrong

Before I get into the meat and the good stuff there are a few formalities to take care of first. .. .Scope of debate and burden of proofTo clarify it is understood by me that when Pro seeks to justify that abortion is "wrong" except when a mothers life is at risk he is speaking in moral terms. Also Pro is the one who has the burden of proof to justify this claim. As such I need not have to justify that abortion is right and/or not immoral. If I can at least show Pro has not provided a good argument to support the claim then that is enough for the votes to go to me as the Con. The consequence of not allowing abortion = forced continuation of pregnancy for womenThe reason most people argue for immorality of abortion and try to equate it to murder is to justify the denial and using force to stop abortion. Now let's be clear here what this means (except with Pros exemption) is that a woman who is pregnant from the moment of conception MUST continue with that pregnancy. She gets no choice in the matter. This is a huge infringement of personal freedom for women so if you are going to argue for such things I don't think is too much that your argument be pretty rock solid containing no lies, deceptions or logical fallacies and can hold up to scrutiny. FreedomMy first argument in support of allowing abortion is simply that people can do what they want unless we have a good reason to stop it. Now I anticipate that Pro will seek to give such a reason but up until this point none has being provided. Abortion isn't always murderNote when I talk about murder here I am speaking in moral terms. I could seek to justify this but I don't have to as Pro has already granted this when he says. .. "I am taking the stance that abortion is wrong in all cases except when the death of the mother is unpreventableI suppose this is a bit of a double edged sword for Pro. On one hand if you claim that abortion is wrong without exemption you end up with the absurd result where are a woman who will die from pregnancy or something related to it has to die cause you know abortion is wrong. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .ALWAYS. On the other hand if you make an exemption this leaves the door open to making other exemptions so you can chip away at the whole abortion is wrong or at least parts of it argument. But such is the nature of rules in general. The point being Pro opens the door for an exemption, sure he may want to make that exemption and close the door again and put the biggest pad lock he can find on it and a big sign that says do not open this door ! !! .. .. .. .. .. but I am not going to let him do that, I wouldn't be doing my job as the Con if I did. As such I think Pro owes us an explanation as to why some abortions are morally wrong and some are not to be held up to examination. Sure Pro can assert what abortions are wrong and ok, but you see so can I, and so can you. It's wrong to kill humans because they are human and SpockA common argument is that it is wrong to kill humans and abortion kills a human ergo abortion is wrong. Consider for example we are visited by intelligent sentiment aliens. Now some one kills such an alien just because they wanted too. They claim they did nothing wrong cause after reading lots of abortion arguments and praying to Jesus and reading the bible and maybe mumbling something about man being made in Gods image he has concluded it's only wrong to kill a human and thus since what he killed is not human he has done no wrong. But for most of us this goes against our moral intuitions. In order to maintain our moral intuitions we have to reject this kind of reasoning. As such what this shows is that the fact that something is or isn't human is not the variable that determines if it is ok or not to kill it. Note the argument here isn't that from the moment of conception it is not human rather that the mere "humanity" or lack of isn't what determies if it is morally ok to kill it or not. Human value/moral equivalencyAnother argument is that from the moment of conception at all points of pregnancy we are dealing with something that has the same "value" as you me or a 5 year old child. Such arguments often make claims about how it is all the same on a rights and or moral level its just an issue of development or potentiality which are non moral relevant factors. As such just as we would reject the killing of a 5 year old child we should reject to killing of a human 3 day embryo. Here is a picture of a human 3 day embryo. .. .. http://www.advancedfertility.com...Consider the following through experiment you arrive at two buildings next to each other that are on fire. In one building is a 5 year old human child, in the other is a 3 day human embryo. Your going for the 5 year old first aren't you ? Maybe you can tell your self something like well it's 1 vs 1, I have to pick one of them. Ok, let's up the ante. .. .. .. .. Same situation in one building is a 5 year old human child in the other 10, 3 day human embryos ? Your still going for the child aren't you ? Let's up the ante again. .. Same situation one 5 year old child and 100, 3 day human embryos. The point here is that valuing a 3 day human embryo the same way as a human 5 year old child would lead to absurdities, imagine if a fire fighter came out from such a situation and said look I had to make a decision, save a 5 year old child or 100, 3 day human embryos, and since they are all have the same value I did the math and it was a no brainier I choose 100 embryos over the one 5 year old child. Shall we give him his medal now ? is there a medal for stupid ? But just for fun and to see where your moral intuitions and reasoning takes you, Same situation in one building 100 human 3 day embryos, In the other a puppy, a very very cute puppy, and he is scared. What you went for the puppy ? Your worse than Hitler ! !! Bodily rights argumentMost people even Pro lifers/anti abortion rights people grant that women have some sort of bodily rights. The question is to what extent ? clearly an anti choicer does not believe that right extends to allowing abortion. But does this hold up to scrutiny ? Consider another thought experiment. One day you wake up to find yourself attached to some one else. If that person is detached from you they will die. Do your bodily rights end here because if you choose a course of action a person who is dependent on your body will die ? There are such variations of this kind of argument that in practical terms are outrageous and in the foreseeable future won't be encountered but never the less they serve a point to provide insight and the insight is this, another person even if they are dependent on that others persons body for their own life does not negate that other persons bodily right, including the right to deny access to their own body, even if by denying that access another person will die. As such even if we grant at the moment of conception a "person" exists, and that person is dependent on that woman's body for their own life, that woman still has the right to deny accesses to that persons body. I look forward to Pros response