Abortion is generally immoral

I hope to have an excellent debate with my opponent :DC1: The future like ours argument Now the question is, as a fetus is a human, why should we not kill it? And why is it immoral to kill an adult but not a person? This is a question always being debated, and its the question is a fetus morally equivalent to an adult? Now, this argument was formulated to counter the desire argument, one that argues a fetus has no desires therefore is not like an adult morally. But note the desire argument fails, as people view it immoral to kill people contemplating suicide as they want to die. But in society we view it still immoral as you are taking life that could have been (assuming they reform themselves). And that is where the future like ours (FLO) comes to play. As it is used to argue killing a suicidal person is immoral, it also applies to a fetus. Now lets look into a child doing suicide, getting hit by a car, murdered, or just dying. We often hear how that kid was to young to die, he had a future, etc. Like the phrase "I am to young to die". All of this uses the same logic as the FLO. These thoughts of people and philosophers alike assume something is being deprived in their future. When one dies, you are then deprived of the future, or what would have been a future. Inflicting the loss of a future is what actually makes murder immoral (much of the time, unless its defense and you are preventing you losing your future) and that being the point killing any adult is immoral. This is how the argument follows:1. Killing something with a future like ours (ours = human) is morally wrong2. A fetus has a future like ours. 3. Hence killing a fetus is morally wrong Now this argument is logically valid, and works as it shows a property/attribute a fetus already has: a future like ours. This argument also works even better then others as this is an attribute a fetus shares with us, and just not showing it has a potential too have it (that works but is slightly less convincing). The FLO proves the fetus has a right to life, and refutes the common argument a fetus has nothing in common with a human. Again, this argument also refutes the view that it is moral to kill a fetus as it has no desires. And this argument is much ore convincing, shows that a fetus's future exists therefore taking it away is bad (same logic as the desire argument, but actually shows its weakness) etc. This argument is logically valid and proves the point on all accounts. Now this next point is supposed to be used along with the next argument as the FLO is the argument that makes the majority of killings immoral. The next argument relates to brain dead people, and a fetus. The FLO is a sufficient point proving it is immoral to kill anything with a future. As a fetus usually will survive, it will have a future and is therefore immoral to abort it. C2: Substance view This argument is spouted all the time, in many debates, under many names. Pro-Life people almost always use this argument, as it is fairly effective and simple to comprehend. This argument argues a fetus has rights and is not just property of the woman. To start my opponent likely agrees a grown adult that is alive in his 30's has a right to life. This is fairly uncontroversial. Again, why is it immoral to kill them? Under this argument, I contend humans come into this world with valuable and accidental properties making them unique. Some of these attributes include being a person, just plain being a person. But this is the part where my opponent will claim a fetus is not fully aware etc. According to the argument, the ability to acquire these abilities is sufficient for them to have the same moral standing as a "fully" grown human. In other words, being too young or disabled but able to use these attributes close to how they function (or relating too) or be able to acquire these abilities down the road is sufficient to person hood. Fetus' are not mere objects with no capability, that have the ability to acquire these things! Here goes the argument:1. It is morally wrong to kill an adult human as they are part of a valuable species/kind of being2. The unborn do not undergo large developments to poses those intrinsic qualities that makes people special 3. Hence it is immoral to kill the unborn Yes, a fetus does in fact go change, but once abortion becomes an option there is a large potential for the child and not as much as you think will happen. A fetus, then, is already scientifically a human. Sure, its face and brain and size will change. But this is besides the point for #2. The point is as a fetus only requires the ability to acquire the thought process of a human, they really undergo little change. It is like how a baby does not change much to be a 10 year old besides size and other minor things, yet it is considered to have a right to life. A fetus is almost a baby in the same idea, hence using the same logic as a baby is not fully formed we can argue fetus has a right to life under the same logic. I suspect the counter to this argument being the brain dead state and how they have little change to enter this state and have no right to life, and although seems convincing can be countered. C3: A look at society Many of my arguments are well constructed philosophical arguments, and although apply to society the thing I am about to state we are tought since we are young. I used to like this argument before I came here, and then saw these arguments on either side and thought "this argument would be crushed!". Until I saw the golden rule be used effectively. [1]Treat others the way you want to be treated Its marvelous! This is you must ask "do I want this happening to me?". Well to my opponent, readers, and all of the world, looking back would you want to be aborted? No. The point being if you abort a child, or encourage abortion, you are saying I would be ok with being aborted or having someone successfully encourage my mother to have aborted me. As no one (except a very small sub sect of the population) would choose to be aborted. Hence the argument prevails. It is very simple, and nearly bullet proof. CONCLUSION:I am low on room, and was hoping for another argument to be added. But the ones listed are sufficient. If needed, assuming my opponent argues a fetus is not a human therefore C3 does not apply, I can use the same idea/information in a rebuttal. The answer to this debate is clear, I have shown using a very simple argument of the golden rule that abortion is wrong as it is only right if you concede the majority of the world wants to be aborted. (we contend abortion is on balance moral/immoral) so a few cases do not hurt my case. C3 proves on balance it is immoral to abort a fetus, and the other two contentions show that all abortion/most abortion is morally wrong as well. A pro vote is warranted, but this cannot be assumed as my opponent has not responded. To be simple, I have affirmed the resolution. Abortion is generally immoral for the reasons listed above. C3 and 1 seem to be the killers. I urge a PRO vote when the time comes. Source:1. http://www.debate.org...