Abortion is injustice and morally wrong,

Re: "I noticed how Con"" So you"re stepping away from your first claim of abortion being murder. "My contentions are simple: that abortion is a form of murder and is morally, spiritually,and physically wrong." Legal Truth/morality: "My opponent also ignores what laws are and it does not matter if one does or not consider them truth or moral, for they were established simply as law. Reason why if you break the law one won"t care if you don"t consider the law truthful or moral."-Round 2, Re: opening, last paragraph, 2nd sentence Re: "My opponent: "Do you believe that those who do abortions do it with malice?" No"" Then it cannot be murder, therefore making your statement," that abortion is a form of murder" incorrect. Re: My opponent: "Is it currently lawful?"" If it"s not obvious I have indeed answered this. (Refer to legal truth/morality, from above) Re: "Your case for morality is well written, says me"" This is subject to how one defines "innocent", I don"t really care of what morality you conform to I was simply giving examples of types of morality. Showing how unreliable to consider something immoral, when it can be completely moral by another type of morality. Re: "Con writes: "My opponent fails to realize the amount of kids who weren't aborted yet either die or kill the birth parent due to poor conditions, long ago birth killed 1 out of 1.5 mothers.""" If you speak survival of the species, if a child is born in a time at which resources are scarce the being who brought it into this world, believe it or not, will "kill" it, for a child for its first years of life in a burden on the society, it cannot gather food, it cannot defend the society, and it does not have the strength to even defend itself. Logically speaking such a burden would lead to the demise of the species. Would you rather we take the path of fish? Throw hundreds of thousands of "children" into the world with no guidance and "pray" they don"t all die" The already living has always been more valued than a life that has just begun, that is nature. Matured (capable of breeding)> Child> aged (cannot breed or fend for itself in a time of crisis) Re: "We need to focus on definitions rather than "objective morality""" Your claim that it is an "injustice and morally wrong" you follow up this statement with "Abortion "IS" murder" not simply "killing". You cannot keep backing away from your argument and trying to change your stance mid-way. Murder is an "unlawful" killing of a person, that is the definition, you claim it is an injustice for it is murder, meaning your arguing this under injustice being defined as law (refer to definitions). Re: "My opponent: "This part of my opponent"s argument contradicts itself"" "It"s not an individual"s choice" well it is for the government establishes that" With this logic the victim of a rape doesn't have a choice for it"s not an individual choice" Re: "I will now reinforce my statement"" That hardcore view of sexual acts as not for pleasure but for only reproduction, I hope if you"re going to say this then you"re not committing acts of masturbation, for it is a sexual act that is stimulating the reproduction organs" If we"re going to go that far, any type of sexual stimulation that activates these organs could be considered an abortion. Man that will suck, guys will be considered murders for wanting to rub one off, and since we all know it takes two to tango. About this "unprotected sex" thing, you do know that protection is not 100%, condom can rip, the pill may be ineffective, etc" Even the day after pill could be considered an early abortion. In fact anything preventing a pregnancy can be viewed as being an act of preventing life, which, to you, would be illegal" Re: "My opponent: "Like any negative effect on one"s body"" Sympathy appeal I see, quick question if you will die if you give birth, mainly due to a complication, that does not mean you can"t have a child but the current pregnancy can and in all likely hood will kill you, what will you do? Let"s throw in a father who ran away and this child will never see him in his/her life time, a rapist. By the way, "I know he will become a human like you or me", umm the "potential" of becoming a good lawful citizen who doesn't wish to infringe on a person"s rights to their own privacy or what"s best for their child. If you don't like abortions, then don't have one... Re: "Isn't attacking/denying the choice also interfering with personal choice"" This part of my argument is the contradiction I mentioned earlier for your saying "it"s not an individual choice" yet it has already been concluded that it"s not up to government to interfere with personal issues. I mentioned this many times before, if you want a fetus to be labeled as a person then, 1. You need to prove its can rationally think. 2. If so, you cannot support the current child raising system deployed by parents for it infringes on these children"s rights as a person. 3. You must label woman"s rights as being inferior to a fetus/child's human rights Normal human rights> Children human rights> Woman human rights Re: ""Oh, and I suppose it is totally moral, just and legal for the mother to murder her 5 year old child too, because after all, the child is still her property, right?"" What"s the difference between a 5 year old and a fetus? Well for one, one is actually developed and does not rely on taking directly from the parent to exist. The 5 year old is capable of speech. Can the fetus do that? No" Once out of the womb it can be considered a fully independent organism who does not force itself on to another therefore gaining the official title of "human child". Re: "My opponent tries to make it sound like the awful statistics for Foster Care"" Look abortion itself has been going down for years now; your argument doesn't take into account the repercussions of forcing a mother to go through birth. Not only will it cause death of woman it will increase the amount of kids who will go into foster care and come out without be adopted, thrown into the world with, no core skills, no money, and no connections. A whole new class of homeless will evolve from forcing birth, which will be such a strain of the system that it will affect everyone. Re: "Con: "Irrelevant: abortion was not defined by law as being only for last resort""" I don"t care what the Pro-choice-ers make cases for; legally there is no restriction of it being only for last resort. Re: "Con: "Irrelevant: section goes off topic"" It"s up to the mother if she wants it gone; I"m not going to force a mother to go through birth. Person rights over rule human being rights, for a person(s) have the rationality capable to make decisions and understand their surroundings. Now the issue with your statement is you don"t know if this disability caused a miscarriage or complications that will kill the mother. Again person rights trumps human rights and if the mother consented to an abortion to save herself it"s her choice. Re: CONCLUSION AND NOTES "I did not mean to insult you"" It"s insulting to any debater to take another"s rebuttals and say they are your own" "You accuse me of giving sources"" I accuse you of improper sourcing for you did not "quote" the rebuttal(s) you use as your main arguments in the previous round, which is like taking it as your own work, plagiarism. Definitions are simple for anyone can place them in a google search to find them or they already know the definition" "Because my opponent has not explained his position"" "Re: opening, last paragraph, 2nd sentence"" "Wait, hold it, miscarriage is abortion???!! Since when are they the same?" Abortion, death/removal of a fetus while still in pregnancy Miscarriage, Death of a fetus while still in pregnancy" That is just how legislation lays in anti-abortion countries" I Extend my conclusion, Simple solution, don't like abortion then don't have one...