Abortion

It's actually what Kathy Bates calls James Caan in 'Misery,' a fantastic movie. I'd prefer it if the people I talked to didn't feel like kids lol. So let's continue. People performing illegal acts does not make the legal version of that act a bad thing. For example; bondage. Bondage is legal and is broadcast online for hundreds of millions of people to enjoy. However, tying someone up in your basement and keeping them captive against their will for months is not a very nice thing to do. So does that make bondage a bad thing? No. The illegal activity performed is by bad people doing bad things, and has nothing to do with the legal/"okay" aspects. So abortion in the first or second trimester, performed properly, is NOT the same as (I don't want to go into gory detail) violent, illegal late-term abortions. The difference between the gay community and unborn, undeveloped embryos is that the gay community members have been alive for decades, have developed into full-grown adults with a full working nervous system, thought processes, emotions, mannerisms, consciousness, etc, while embryos have not. I see your entire argument is based around a man-made law revolving around human rights. You say "human rights are for human beings, and because an unborn embryo is a human, due to sharing the same DNA, the same human rights applied to born humans should apply to the unborn ones." Well like I said earlier, the world isn't that black and white. You basically dismissed my entire argument and rebutted with "well they're humans, so your argument is irrelevant." Like I said - there are many, MANY other factors to consider when dealing with every form of decision-making. The embryo is not aware of what is happening to it, as it's consciousness doesn't "come online" until it's born [1], and even then, the consciousness doesn't even fully develop until a couple years after birth. And I'd say that's a good enough reason to allow abortions - the unborn embryo is unconscious, and is therefore unaware of anything going on. It's unaware of it's own existence. It's unaware of any stimuli (as I stated before, reflexive actions are not a part of an awareness) affecting it, and it's definitely unable to feel any form of pain. This is not the same thing as an awake, aware, conscious, born human being, so I feel this merits the "human rights" part of this is able to have exceptions made for it. Unfortunately for the rest of your argument, you seem to have misunderstood what I said. On the 2nd line of my 4th paragraph in my round 3 argument, I stated that "...a two-celled fertilized egg is a human being..." so the majority of your next two paragraphs are basically inapplicable to this debate. With that being said, I noticed the main point you're bringing up is that a fetus/embryo shares so many human traits that it would be "bad" to terminate it. Well, aside from the "human rights" argument that I've already discussed, there's not a whole lot saying that it is "bad" to terminate an unborn fetus. It resembles humans, so I can see the relatability aspect - it looks like you, so you don't want to kill it, however your feelings shouldn't have a huge impact on a woman's life who is unrelated (or even related) to you. It resembles the physical features of a human after a certain stage. It shares similar features (protip: all life forms look pretty much the same up until a certain point) to a born human, but do those features actually matter? It looks like a (born) human, but does it think like a human? It has the blood circulation as a human, but does it feel pain like a human? It exists like a human, but does it KNOW it exists like a human? The list goes on. My point is that the features an embryo/fetus shares with a human are the irrelevant ones - the ones that appeal strictly to emotion - and doesn't have any science/logic/reasoning behind it. I also noticed you're hung up on the "24 week" thing. And although your entire argument around that is a straw man and doesn't even need to be addressed, I will quickly go over it, to please you. The reason I picked 24 weeks (I'm okay with abortion at any time, I know I'm a monster) is because it's easier to use that as a "cut-off" line - once the third trimester starts, the fetus grows significantly into a more recognizable human, the Thalamus (responsible for consciousness) forms, and it shares many more human characteristics. This is irrelevant though. You haven't shared a single source yet (something you should easily be able to do if you're so knowledgeable about the economy), so I'll assume we won't bother with sources for this part. All I have to say is if there's a greater population, there's a greater demand for food. There's a higher crime rate. Diseases spread easier. Show me a SOURCE (I did mine last round) that says you can combat these easily, and that population density doesn't matter. Merci. [1] http://www.scientificamerican.com...