Abortion Is Morally Wrong

Thanks for responding. I'll try to take your argument bit by bit, because you have a lot for me to chew on. "When deciding if something is moral or immoral one is with absolute influence and subjectivity. Morality is relative to experience. What one calls immoral another calls righteous. In other words, there is no such thing as objective morality." I agree with that statement. There can be no completely agreed upon basis of what is moral and what is not. That's why I tried to prove abortion was murder. See, there are certain things in Western Civilization that can be agreed upon by the majority of citizens. Murder, theft and rape are some of these things. Still, there will always be someone who thinks differently, but that doesn't mean that we should allow that thing (say murder) to still take place. "What constitutes law? In order for something to be illegal it has to meet constitutional constraints." You're forgetting, it seems, that the law changes, and new constraints are added. I am suggesting one should be added. "Rather, we determine legality on more of an impact basis. If an action has a negative impact and it's damage is provable it is determined illegal on a spectrum for example classes of felonies and misdemeanor." Another amazing point. Now I'm really happy you decided to choose my debate in the first 20 minutes of your time on this site! So, to debunk this, I must prove that abortion has its downsides, and has a negative impact basis. Here's my following evidence for this: [A] "According to the best record based study of deaths following pregnancy and abortion... women who abort are approximately four times more likely to die in the following year than women who carry their pregnancies to term." -http://afterabortion.org... [B] "...researchers found that compared to women who carried to term, women who aborted in the year prior to their deaths were 60 percent more likely to die of natural causes, seven times more likely to die of suicide, four times more likely to die of injuries related to accidents, and 14 times more likely to die from homicide. Researchers believe the higher rate of deaths related to accidents and homicide may be linked to higher rates of suicidal or risk-taking behavior." -http://afterabortion.org... [C] "Legal abortion is reported as the fifth leading cause of maternal death in the United States..." -http://afterabortion.org... NOTE: I encourage the reader to visit the site for evidence A-C. It is very useful, and has staggering charts that show how much more abortion hurts the mothers. Finally, this is not even accounting for all the could-be children that died before they were in the world. It's important to not only look at where the fetus is now, but where it will be in 30 years. It could have been an amazing person, friend, doctor, politician, or, a crime lord. That's the risk humanity has to take. For example, would you rip up the blueprints to a skyscraper, and then claim that you lost nothing? Sure you did! You lost the skyscraper! Or what if you broke your computer while it was being made in the factory? You lost it! Now, you may say that you invested in those two things, but not in your baby. But, if you conceived a human being, you have already invested in the entire life of that human being. That thing has a future, contrary to a sperm cell. You therefore lose a human being and a negative impact is created. "For example: if we define human life as early as embryos and charge the destruction of such with murder, do we ban fertility clinics as well? Do we impose sanctions that all fertilized embryos become implanted? This is why laws and definitions are imperative to society" My response to this may seem stupid, but it's truly, I don't know. It is not my job to create laws. I am not a legal person, more of a politician. We could discuss the changes that would have to be made all day, and honestly, that's not what this debate is for. Fertility Clinics would have to adapt, and I'm sure there would be middle ground, where they would still be running, but possibly have less embryos. I still see you main point here, and that's we shouldn't perceive things on morality. But, you can't morality. No matter how far you trace something back, it always leads to morals. For example: you say laws are based on negative impacts. Well, "negative" is based on subjective morals, and destroys your entire point. We must all speak the language of morality, even though it contrasts in us all. Constitutions and legal documents are the result of melding different kinds of morality and created one unified morality. And I am saying that abortion is wrong in that unified morality that is the morality of America. Good luck.