abortion is wrong

Thankyou for that rebuttal. this debate has been really fun, thankyou for accepting it. WOMAN ILLNESS- OK even if the woman didn't know she had the sickness, This is where she must decide th RIGHT thing to do. She has had the oppurtunity to live. It's not her fault that she has to die for the baby so i can see why you would feel sorry for her, But that's where i am trying to get with the baby. It doesn't get a choice on whether it lives or dies, and unlike the mother, it doesn't get the Chance to even attempt to live it's life. When it comes down to abortion or the mothers life it is really just a matter of opinion of who's life would be more important in the situation. I would argue for the childs in this case seeing as the mother has already lived and experienced life where as the baby did not even get that chance BABY FROM BEGINNING- 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 in answer to your question that is murder.OPPONENTS QUOTE IN REBUTTAL TO MINE-"so i reply if there is a minor chance that things will go wrong then i understand why people Would opt for the chance to live, but for me, if a child was to be born and the chances were greater than 90% of him/her not surviving the first week of it's life" O.k. so given this mock play of events, the child now only has 10% of a chance of living. My opponent is saying that it is better just to let the child die than taking that 10% chance. No matter how small the chance of thats childs continued life, we do not choose which higher probability will take place for the child. We assume the child will just die because of the high chances. That is nature and lifes decision to make not ours. We cant say that the child won't some how live through the small percentage. And if the child dies, the child dies and there is nothing anyone can do about it. But at least he got to take the chance and let nature decide whether that child would die or not. MY OPPONENT-"can you tell me that doctors predictions are mostly wrong?" the answer is no, i cant. but i would also like to point out the the word you used specifically was "predictions". Science is never exact. It's all just theories and predictions. Doctor base their results off of science. There is in-numerable cases where doctors have been wrong due to "predictions". So is killing a child based off an indefinite source the right thing to do in this case? I think not. MY OPPONENT-"if a child isnt going to make it long enough to even experiance any sort of life, if they are just going to be so SERIOUSLY disabled and SO seriouisly handicapped that they are completely unaware that there is a life to be lived." This in no way correlates with abortion. How could any one knnow that the child would turn out like that. What you are referring to in this case is what is called a "stillborn" A stillborn is a child who does not take in its surroundings or its life in any way. practically dead but alive at the same time. I am not against the killing of stillborns. But i do believe this topic was about abortion. In which doctors have no way of proving that a child will be a stillborn before birth. They can predict birth attained diseases, but not aqquired traits. MY OPPONENT-"i know people get ill and recover but what are the chances of a day old baby pulling through brain damage or something?" This is the same situation. brain damage is aqquired through birth. Unless the mother drops the baby or something, the baby would not get brain damage. brain damage is not an issue with abortion. CHILD ABUSE- Again ,as i have stated in the previous round, 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. SEXUALLY ABUSED CHILD- Again this is where adoption comes in. I'm surprised you would bring this topic back up with out arguing that point. Wasn't that the big issue with parental responsibilty/abortion? RAPE- MY OPPONENT- "the rape thing, how could a woman be expected to go through 9 months of emotional turmoil, constantly reminded of her terrifying and horrifying ordeal that she was victimised and unvoluntarly impregnated by a man whom she doesnt love." I have argument already, but i will re-state a little more clearly. I know it wasn't the mother fault that she is pregnant. Its not fair to her that she has to go through this. It's not fair for anyone. But is it fair for the child either? To not let that child live because of his/her fathers wrong doing? Its just as unfair to the child as it is to the mother. That is what i meant when i said the mother can survive 9 months of emotional turmoil. She should carry it out for the child. She doesn't need to keep it. How could you look in to the eyes of you attacker everyday? But that shouldn't suggest that someone else can't care for the child. And the child life isn't going to be dramatically challenged to the point the death would be the answer... SELFISHNESS- MY OPPONENT-"are you saying that having some form of selfishness is a flaw?" yes to an extent. An extent such as the one your story suggested. Are you saying that selfishness is a good thing? if so than that would be one factor in the abortion problem for sure. And you have my closing debate sorely mistaken. Though i do understand for some it would be more difficult to understand. a simplified version of my closing argument in Round 3 would be: Pretty much if you have responsibility, and know how to use it, you would explore your options more thoroughly. Not that your choice is neccesarily best. You should look for the good and bad in the situation. that is the point of this debate, to be openminded. Noot that every persons decision is what should matter. It should to en extent but, also not be thrown out of proportion to the conclusion of murder. If there was any choice or fairness in the action. then both the child and the mother would get choice. However unfortunately this is not the case. I look forward to your rebuttal to this. I will continue in the comment section of this debate. If you wish you can argue further there. I am sorry i did not make more rounds to this debate, but i am just used to people forfeitting alot, so i didn't want to wait too long if that were too happen again. Kudos my friends :) be sure to check the comment section for my rebuttal. -Fo-shizzle