Abortion should be legal

should = Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. "A fetus an recognise its mother's voice". A scanner at work can recognise when someone puts something in that needs to be scanned, and starts the scanning. This actually does something productive to the recognition, but will there be a moral objection when it is replaced for something better? I hope not. Recognition is not a characteristic of use. As you later mentioned, we keep recognising things up until 25. In the document, it mentions how we discriminate against language sounds, as well as other things. Let me mention that animals and plants do this as well (. http://www.globalanimal.org...)(http://www.dailygazette.com...)(http://timesnews.net...). Recognition of sound is irrelevant, and recognition as a whole is near universal. Also, this argument can also be applied to all forms of life; when I kill a fly flying about in my room, is it murder? "My opponent's backwardly defined life as. .. " Well, seeing as he is ignoring most of what I have said and is rewording it for his own purpose, I'll just state it again. ALL that abortion is is the termination of cells. Yes, killing a human being is a termination of cells. Just as, say, this computer produces heat. There are other things involved in its process. A human being is a productive member of society. A computer is a useless tool. "if your father lapses. .. " The argument is fallacious: When you give birth to a child, they are not fully fledged men/women, productive in society, able to fend for themselves, and not causing a problem for the carers. It would be more like for the first nine months you have to look after them, at the cost of your own life and future, then for the next 18 years after that you must keep caring for them, which would cost, according to the "mommy tax", around 1 million (. http://life.familyeducation.com...) or a quarter of your [b]lifetime[/b] income (. http://shine.yahoo.com...). Compare this to the low-income threshold. The latest year for which household income data is available is 2008/09. In that year, the 60% threshold was worth: ï¿½119 per week for single adult with no dependent children; ï¿½206 per week for a couple with no dependent children; ï¿½202 per week for a single adult with two dependent children under 14; and ï¿½288 per week for a couple with two dependent children under 14. These sums of money are measured after income tax, council tax and housing costs have been deducted, where housing costs include rents, mortgage interest (but not the repayment of principal), buildings insurance and water charges. They therefore represent what the household has available to spend on everything else it needs, from food and heating to travel and entertainment. In 2008/09, 13ï¿½ million people in the UK were living in households below the 60% low-income threshold after deducting housing costs. This is around a fifth (22%) of the population. Thirty per thousand women have an abortion. Using some fancy mathematics, this makes roughly 6 million women below the income threshold. 5% of these people will give birth to a child between the age of 15 and 19 (. http://www.unicef-irc.org...). This makes 300,000 people who will be drastically pushed below their means. This puts another 300,000 people inside the poverty line. This makes 300,000 more drains on society; people with no productive value at all. The opposition also rests on the laurel that humanity has an intrinsic value. This needs to be justified before trying to rebut this point. Your mathematical explanation lacks any citation, therefore, I shall recreate the mathematical proof: . http://womenshealth.about.com... 0.15 * 0.09 = 0.0135(1-condom rate)*(1-pill rate) . http://www.google.co.uk... 307007000 (population of America) * 0.0135 = 4 144 594.5 abortions per year. . http://www.abortionno.org... shows that there is 1.37 Million abortions a year in America. This makes MINUS 2 million, give or take a little, abortions due to not using birth control. The maths is flawed. Amazing. I also want to bring up the fact that the opposition did not bring up anything in a slightly larger degree of depth : When he said I need to define "should", he did not himself. I wonder if that is because it is simply a diversion to take up space. I am wondering whether I shall be asked what "be" means: If you want to talk about semantics, please explain why, or it just seems as a waste of time. Usually, I would query someone about their understanding of English, but I shall move on. He also gave no definition of "life", saying mine was wrong, giving a false dichotomy as a response, and even a strawman. Ironic, for his final comment of saying he'll point out my fallacies, yet mentions none. "My opponent. .. classifies the retarded, handicap. .. as all amongst the zombies. " I could cry strawman, but I feel my opponent would ignore me, bearing in mind the previous paragraph was a strawman also. He states that a live being with certain human potential encompasses a clump of cells. "Potential" is not an argument. It has the same potential to find the cure for a supervirus than it has to create one. "Potential" is an argument used when you realise that a feotus has no use. Combine this with the fact that many will grow in poverty, this just makes my argument stronger. "Reducing teenage births offers an opportunity to reduce the likelihood of poverty, and of its perpetuation from one generation to the next. " Is a quote from UNICEF. (. http://www.unicef-irc.org...) Fig. 5 shows that economically, the majority of teenage mothers in the UK, my home country, have less than upper secondary education. It is also an average rating. Over half are not working, meaning inactive and claiming unemployed benefits, so NOT in school, as my opponent may bring up without checking the table. Almost half have neither them nor a partner working, while 4 in 10 do not have a partner. Finally, more than half are in the bottom 20% bracket of income for the household. Limiting abortion is destroying lives, not saving them. You talk of potential, look at how much potential limiting abortion is destroying.