Abortion in any case, should be against the law.

Thank you for the debate, however, I will be blunt and tell you that you make no real arguments. So, I will address each of your statements and then add my own assertions. Maybe you can have a better time analying my arguments.I will begin by saying if you abort a baby, you are a murderer. I feel that is is the crux of your argument. Yet, you failed to support your thesis with any reasoning. Essentially, you would've just been as effective as saying abortion, in any case, should be against the law (as is your debate title.) In what ways do you consider a ball of cells, a fetus, and a baby to be the same? By your staunch arguments and examples with the pig, I think it is safe to assume that as soon as the egg and sperm fertilize, it is considered human and killing humans is immoral (funny thing though, in your last sentence of the first paragraph you actually said the opposite, killing is immoral except for murder :P) The problem with your concept of a human is that youre turning the debate to animal rights. You are stating that a ball of cells is considered human. If so then, how would we differentiate homo sapiens sapiens from other organisms such as Yeasts or an ant? At fertilzation, both are a ball of cells. Ultimately, youre saying that we should not kill any living organism, which is very hard to do considering that we will in our lifetime ultimately kill organisms by accident. Thus through this argument, it would seem that every person in the world is immoral. If everyone is immoral then, your argument fails on the idea that people who do not abort, are moral, because we abort more ball of cells or lower forms of organisms essentially every day, making your statistics insignificant when we take your argument into consideration (sorry for the run-on.)If I assumed wrong and that is not your belief on what a human is, then we can take your assertions literally that a baby has rights as soon as it is fully developed. The problem with this assertion is that, how would you differentiate mothers rights with the baby's. If the mother dies as a result of the baby, is that fair to the mother? In what ways would we consider a baby's rights, who has been living in this world for less than 1 hour, more important than a 20-30 year old mother? Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethoughthttp://www.merriam-webster.com...Whichever scenario you take, one would realize that it is not considered murder. If you still think it is murder, you need to prove that the intentions of the mother are with MALICE as defined above. In no way shape or form have you argued that this is the case. AS a result, your argument fails and you have yet to demonstrate your BOP.Some evolutionists like to say a pig is more of a human than the fetus itself. But the pig will never become a human. A fetus will. You worded this sentence poorly. By saying "a fetus will [become a human], you are suggesting that a fetus is not a human, yet. As of right now, I cannot understand what you are trying to suggest with this statement. Unless you are trying to concede to my point, then please elaborate.Did you know that Tim Tebow's parents almost aborted him? What if the baby you abort would have some day cured cancer? Or invented some lifesaving invention. This is a very weak argument when you compare the probablity of producing a genius to the economic and social detriments provided on the mother and child. "What if" statements are very weak because it suggests something happening, but the chances of it happening are slim. If cancer was easy to cure, I'm pretty sure someone would have already solved that problem years ago. What makes that one person different from the other 7 billion currently residing on earth?As for Tebow, I thought he wanted to be a starting quarterback...soooo why is he a commentor for ESPN? So what's your point with the Tebow example? :P nd there is nothing wrong with killing animals. Therefore if the parents don't want the baby, they should just kill it. No big problem. Same with elderly. If they can't life on their own, by this definition we should just kill them off. Think of it this way. Obama passed a law that would require people that are on life support to be cut off.First of all, obamacare deals with insurance, not with physical removal of life support.Second, you make statements without support, for space, I am not gonna bother refuting this assertions for they are irrelevent to the debate of IS ABORTION MORAL/LEAGAL.In my opinion, I believe Abortion should be legal. For this debate, I will argue that abortion is permissible. The reason being is that the choice ultimately comes down to the mother. It was the mother and father's idea of having a baby. The mother is seen responsible for rearing that child, and if she decides not to have the baby, then its her right to abort it. Preferably sooner than later. The reason being is that it was the mothers choice to have the baby to begin with. If she decides not to have it before the baby is fully developed, then it is her right to not have it (for this debate, I will avoid the situaiton of rape.) It is true that those "what ifs" can come true, however, when we look at the social and economic burdens with having a child, is it right to take that chance? Even if I am 100% sure that the mother will produce another Einstein, but if she doesnt have the social or economic means to rear the child, that would mean that she raised a child against her will. As for people saying adoption is a plausibility, one should consider the chances of being adopted by the right family with the right resources to rear a genius. Secondly, we have to go back to the mother's rights. What's her reasoning for enudring 9 months of pain and suffering? What makes the baby's rights more important than the life giver, the mother?