Abortion is Wrong

Ok, so I read a couple comments about my argument being to "emotional" rather than "intellectual." That's because this is an emotional/moral debate rather than purely intellectual. Just because there is a lack of numbers and statistics in the debate doesn't mean it's not credible anymore, it only means that it doesn't require those things. The question of abortion is whether it's right or wrong, that's a moral issue. Use your intellect to test whether the parallels and analogies are accurate or not. Use your logic to decide whether my stance makes sense. From my point of view, my debate is very intellectually and morally sound, that's why I'm pro-life. There's very strong scientific and philosophical arguments for the pro-life stance that I have yet to hear any pro-choice stance stand up to. If there wasn't, I'd be pro-choice right now. Well moving on, Con, when you say, "The greatest thing that separates a foetus from almost everything human-related in this argument is that they don't possess consciousness and thus do not possess the sentience or sapience that a baby possesses," you are giving the baby worth based on its level of development. A fetus gains the ability to be conscious over time just like a 6 year old girl needs time to develop the ability to reproduce. If I had a 6 year old girl and a 14 year old girl, one would be able to reproduce and one wouldn't, but their value is still the same. Likewise, you can have a fetus and a toddler, one is conscious one is not, but their value should be the same, despite their level of development. You then go on to explain that if it can't feel pain or suffering, then we have the right to end the life inside the womb. What happens then when you realize that people in comas are incapable of feeling pain or suffering? Even in regular sleep, you could take a gun to the head of someone and pull the trigger and they'll have felt no pain, fear, suffering, nothing; but was it wrong to do? Next, when you say, "removing a group of cells from a woman's body can barely be called "murder"," is misrepresenting what exactly is inside the mother. They are not just, "a group of cells," if they were, my argument would be saying you commit mass murder when you scratch dead skin cells off your hand. But they aren't just bodily cells; they altogether from the moment of conception are distinct whole human beings- immature, not fully developed- but whole human beings. Science has backed this up in almost every embryological textbook there is, even professors who take the pro-choice stance do so for other reasons, not because they think the fetus isn't a whole human being. I am an avid supporter of womens' rights. They should be allowed to choose their dental plan, health care, who they marry, what job they have, their bank etc. But you can't answer the question, "Can a woman choose?" until you first answer the question, "Choose to do what?" We restrict peoples' rights to choose all the time. We restrict peoples' rights to rob banks, beat their wives and children, drive drunk, and sell drugs. Why though? We do it because the choice is not only "wrong", but it can hurt them and endanger the lives of others. You see there is a definite right and wrong. Morals cannot be subjective. We can have a debate on it later (I really would love to), but I believe we all know that murdering an innocent child is wrong. So you are absolutely right, pro-lifers ARE restricting the woman's right to choose. We do it because we don't believe anyone, man or woman, should have the right to murder. You see, abortion is not an opinion like your opinion on you favorite kind of ice cream: It is another's life, and it is a fact that it is human. It doesn't matter if it's still inside the woman, that is only a different environment than what you and I are in. There is nothing special about the 8 inch journey down the birth canal that all of a sudden makes it a real person and gives it rights and value. If that were the case, you moving from your kitchen to your bedroom could completely change who you are and how valuable you are as a person. And lastly, killing a fetus because it may be forced to endure suffering when it's born is a poor excuse. If I had a 2 year old and we were told, "When he is 5, he's going to be roughed up pretty good. His dad is going to become an alcoholic and beat his kid mercilessly. Shoot him now." Should we listen? I hope you'd say, "No, we should take every measure to ensure he is safely removed from that abusive parent and put into the care a different one." That's a logical choice, and it's no different inside the womb. We should take every precaution to make sure the child and the mother both come out of the delivery room healthy. So you guys reading this debate, sorry for the lack of sources and textbook citing, but this is much more of a moral and logical debate and his arguments are not needing scientific proof to refute them. If I were to try and counter every argument I've heard for abortion, I'd take up a lot more than 10,000 characters... And I don't want to make you guys read for that long. I've always considered mercy to be a virtue. Sources: http://cafarufrj.files.wordpress.com...