Abortion is injustice and morally wrong,

Thank you, Con.Clarification: I still completely hold my contention that abortion is killing. I am arguing that, because abortion simply is the killing of babies, it is an unjust act as well as morally wrong. Con says: "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." Well thanks for quoting yourself. Ok then, instead of explaining why it's perfectly fine to go along with whatever the government officials say is right, give me your back up for why YOU believe abortion should be legal. I am going to assume that you'll say it's the woman's right because Pro Choice is all about women's comfort, so we will keep debating around the (in)justice and (im)morality in that. However I would like to give a little "reminder" and that is that abortion is NOT "pro-women," instead, it kills Mainly because of MLK day, I'm going to bring up some subjects on the minority race. This is not off-subject. Here are the leading causes of death among African Americans since 1973:AIDS: 227,695Violent Crimes: 329,313Accidents: 408,723Cancer:1,324,250Heart Desease: 2,503,789Abortion: 14,5000,000Do these statistics bother you? If not, how are they faulty? Mother Theresa once said, "abortion is murder/killing in the womb. A child is a gift from God. If you do not want him, give him to me." Martin Luther King Jr., once said, "How can the 'Dream' survive if we murder the children? Every baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate." Re: "Then it cannot be murder, therefore making your statement," that abortion is a form of murder" incorrect." First, "abortion is a form of murder" is not my only contention nor my resolution, and second, killing defines murder in this context. Let's not argue definitions, you know what I mean. My opponent: "I don"t really care of what morality you conform to I was simply giving examples of types of morality." If you don't care than why did you give the different examples? Re: "Logically speaking such a burden would lead to the demise of the species. Would you rather we take the path of fish?" So much hurt. This is wrong (A) because we are not scarce on resources, and (B) because society does not work without human beings yet you would choose to abort the next generation. You're telling me that the survival of yourself as a human being is more important than the child's so you would just kill him if resources were scarce?!!? Re: "Throw hundreds of thousands of "children" into the world with no guidance and "pray" they don"t all die."" Umm this is the only world we have, the only chance at life that those unborn babies will/won't, yet from you (Con's) standpoint dieing BEFORE you get born is better than after. Basically now you're saying that--even though the vast majority of babies aborted STILL FEEL pain when getting injected with the killing-pills--it is better for society and for the humans already born to kill the unborn babies. No comprendo. Re: "Murder is an "unlawful" killing of a person, that is the definition, you claim it is an injustice for it is murder..." I believe abortion should be unlawful/illegal. You still haven't given me an answer about why something is legal therefore lawfully sound (moral and just). Please rephrase; I couldn't understand what you were trying to say here: "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"" As I have said before, little less than 2% abortions are because of rape. That doesn't mean rape doesn't happen, but it's not something we should dwell on. Re: "In fact anything preventing a pregnancy can be viewed as being an act of preventing life, which, to you, would be illegal"" Preventing pregnancy is not nearly the same as aborting. This is off topic anyways. Con writes: "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?" It completely depends on the perspective of a person. Since you're asking me, what I would do is look at the possibilities. It would give more life if I gave a new person (my daughter/son) a whole life even if I couldn't live out the rest of my full lifespan--who knows what that would be. Not having an abortion on my baby would be more productive to society and it would make me happy to know I gave my life to give someone else full life. On the side of the father, I would believe in adoption and God's hand on my child. See this site: http://thirdworldorphans.org.... Re: "it has already been concluded that it"s not up to government to interfere with personal issues." Yes but it's not up to a different body to decide the fate of another's. My opponent says: "You need to prove its can rationally think." As I've said, it cannot because it is still developing. That doesn't mean we take it's potential to think away. Re: "If so, you cannot support the current child raising system deployed by parents for it infringes on these children"s rights as a person." What does this have to do with abortion and why should I prove that? Re: "You must label woman"s rights as being inferior to a fetus/child's human rights." Because abortion is legal, I am not saying that it is not the woman's choise. I am saying that it shouldn't be because the baby is his own body which means he has the right to live. Con writing about the differences 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." You have proven my point, Con. A baby cannot save itself from an abortion therefore it is an act of injustice and immorality to take his life. "The 5 year old is capable of speech. Can the fetus do that? No." And that's why I stand up and talk for them! Re: "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." It WILL cause death of women??? See this site for a rebuttal of that: http://www.abortionfacts.com...; All babies are born with no core skills, no money, but the connections part is so off key. Again, you'll need sources to back that up. Re: "I don"t care what the Pro-choice-ers make cases for; legally there is no restriction of it being only for last resort." I don't understand what you were rebutting here. Let me show you something: Abortion, death/removal of a fetus while still in pregnancy Miscarriage, Death of a fetus while still in pregnancy Abortion is purposeful and resolute death of a fetus while still in pregnancy. Miscarriage is the natural accident of the fetus's death while still in pregnancy. Abortion is murder; miscarriage is not. If I don't like abortion I will not have one. But there are alternatives to having abortions just because you don't want to have a baby. And there is something wrong with those who like the idea of aborting babies' lives, and that is what I am concluding with. Thank you for debating.