Abortion

You said this: 'You value ... human life in that your child lives, and you didn"t value human life in that the attacker dies.' This isn't true, as before I said this: '...but in a situation where the child dies OR the attacker dies, I would pick the attacker, as seeing that either way a life is lost, It may as well be that of a murderer as opposed to a child.' You put me in a situation where either way one human life was being lost. As I explained above, if I HAVE to pick who dies, I would pick a murderer vs an innocent child, as either way a life is lost, I might as well move down the ladder of moral imperatives and identify at least some aspects of their character. I would rather live in a world with one less murderer as opposed to a world with one less innocent child, and remember that either way I don't have a choice and someone dies. You also put: 'I did not say that preventing them, using their body, prevents bodily autonomy.' Yes, yes you did. Before you said: 'Bodily integrity or bodily autonomy means that you have the right to control what happens to your body even if that hurts or kills others.' These two statements are inconsistent with each other. You said you have the right to control what happens to your body even if it hurts or kills others, and from my example the attacker is using his body to hurt and kill a victim. According to your own definition I do not have the right to stop him, as he is allowed bodily autonomy 'even if that hurts or kills others'. You said: 'The attacker is trying to change your body without your permission, so you are both morally and legally justified to stop them from changing your body without your permission.' But according to you you're not, as in your first argument you said nothing can prevent bodily autonomy 'even if that hurts or kills others' You are conflicting your own definition. Your next point was about caring for human life. You said this: '700 homeless people freeze to death every year in the US, have you helped them?' The point you are making is that I can't say 'why aren't you caring for human life', when at the same time many people who could use my help do not receive it, and thus my views are inconsistent. The problem with this argument is that you are taking it out of context. I agree with you, that (for example) buying a new car instead of donating the money to a starving kid's fund doesn't make you a murderer. On that, I agree with you. But abortion is different.The reason it is different is that with an abortion YOU instigate the death. If I carried on my life normally and didn't donate to charity, children would die of starvation. If I carried on my life normally and I was pregnant, nobody would die. My counter argument boils down to this, you didn't cause those children to die of starvation, so you shouldn't be held accountable for their death. However, you did cause the fetus to die, as you deliberately killed it, so you SHOULD be held accountable for it's death. As for your final point, you stated this: 'You care about what you call murder when you look at a fetus, but you say actual murder isn"t relevant.' The reason lower crime rates (including murder) are not relevant is that you cannot tell if a fetus will grow up to be a murderer when it is a fetus. When it is a fetus it is incapable of crime, and the justice system is (and should be) innocent until proven guilty. If you decide to abort based on crime rates, you are saying to a group of fetus' 'Some of you might kill people, but to make sure that doesn't happen we will kill all of you' How does that make sense? You are punishing a human for a crime they haven't committed, which is unjust. You mentioned homicides and then this: ' (and I"m talking about the real kind, not abortions)' You have stated before in round 2 that ' Life begins at conception', so how can you be against homicides but not abortions? They are both humans. 'So, you have opened the door to the socio-economic effects of abortion within this debate, but consider homicide" irrelevant' No that is blatantly untrue. You were the one that mentioned crime rate reduction with abortion, not me. YOU brought it up. So don't say I opened the door to socio-economic effects of abortion, because you did.