Abortion is Morally Justified

mr skeptic i am sorry you are unsatisfied with this debate. i think you are a very good opponent despite the disagreement we have in this debate. with that said i will jump into then. first you say "I never used life as a measurement for justification in this debate. I used PERSONHOOD. To be a person is to be self-aware, thus implying one has a fully functioning brain. This is much more distinct that simply being alive." i understood that you used personhood as a topic in your argument. and i refuted it wholeheartedly. but just beacuse i am neg i cant bring up a couple points of my own? (ones that got left untouched btw) next -""EXACTLY. But that's what YOU DID. You said a fetus is life, abortion is killing life, so therefore abortion is wrong. Basically, you have stated that killing life is wrong. But life is a broad category. Life INCLUDES animals and plants. Unless you give a non-arbitrary reason for why humans, a form of life, should have "higher" or "more" rights than an animal or plant, your argument is fallacious."" Humans have more rights than plants do because we are the dominant species and we ar generally more important. to us humanity is more important because we strive to live here and surivive among our fellow man daily. just like a plant does to survive everyday. to us our lives hold more value than the plants. to the plant, their lives mean more to them. I am not saying that their lifes aren't essential, but are theirs more important than ours? you could risk your life saving a human being because to you their life is important. but would you risk your life saving a plant? and the samee would go for a plant too. so again the plants life is essential, but its not of our species and less important to US than a human is. next you say- "*Sigh* you are refuting your own argument. I said "is a dog a human being" to show how fallacious it was of you to say that killing life is bad, thus abortion is bad. You're justification is too broad, and includes non-human animals and plants. Unless you justify against eating veggies, you're argument is arbitrary." again as i am sure you didn't understand but i will say it again. OUR life human life, is more important than a dogs is. to us. If you wanted to argue from the other angle you could say that eating anythig lving is bad, which is just ridiculous. HUMANS life is more important to us as human beings. not to the plants or the dogs. but to US. next you say-"I NEVER USED LIVING AS A JUSTIFICATION. I USED PERSONHOOD" I KNOW THAT!! TRUST ME YOUR FIRST ARGUMENT IS NOT THAT HARD TO READ BUDDY. considering the fact that it is your only argument. funny how i am the neg and you are putting down all my points instead of me putting yours down. (oh yeah because there was only one) again I used living as a justification so its your job as pro to show how the con is wrong and you are right. and the con job is to prove the con is right and you are wrong. but everytime you hear the word 'life' in my arguments you turn tail and run from it.. so i was hoping that maybe in this round you would finally get up and argue it. but apparently not... oh well, another argument dropped. or the same one dropped again. Next -"...haha. A stillborn is a dead fetus via miscarriage or upon birth. You can't kill something that's dead." no buddy a still born is not dead. a stillborn is a baby who is born without thought process. slightly lower than retardation, and a step higher than dead. nice try though. Next-"If you agree that it's a contradiction, then it's YOUR statement that is contradiction. You can't threaten to kill something that is dead. Can you threaten a rock with it's life? Of course not, that's ridiculous." i am a bit confused about this part. here i was arguing about life being concieved as life. I dont know where you are coming at with the whole rock issue. Again if you believe the rock is alive, it is alive. not in reality but in peoples perspectives, and this is why they kill abortion. because in their minds they want to think it is okay to have one, so they tell themselves and every one else that it is dead so they have an excuse to kill it. Next-"No, it's a sh*tty analogy because I never used "quality of life" as an argument, and your original response was an attempted REBUTTAL of mine. Therefore, you have committed a strawman." nice vocabulary. i am sure that will hold for voters ha ha. and although it its the cons job to refute your case, the con is still allowed to bring up points of their own. if you think its is not a good argument tell me why. argue against it.dont just blow it off like you have been doing. Next-"*facesmash*. Just because something is living DOES NOT MEAN it's necessarily a person. Your failure to see this difference is so naive and trivial that I can't believe it's been like this the entire the debate." ha ha i find it funny how you can get so mad over a debate. again like i said "who's life is more important, the humans or the plants?" next you say-"You say that rape and incest account for only 1% of abortions. You then go on to say what is the "driving motivation behind promoting them", or whatever. Obviously, this would be relevant IF I WAS JUSTIFYING ABORTION because of rape and incest cases. You can't construct a rebuttal of an argument I never use." i know you never used it kid. i did. i am supposed to prove that abortion is wrong in at least one case. which is here. and you dropped it. thanks. My first conclusion: you said "What is it, does life matter or not? Because you seem to say both sides." no i have not said both sides. i have said human life is more important. for the third of fourth time now You say "LIVING DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN BEING A PERSON" because like i said you concieve whether you want it to be a person or not. its still a potential life, therefore a human being. and living. make any excuse you want to kill it, its still a living human being. you say "Yes, a contradiction on YOUR PART. Those who are sensible, just read that closely. Telling someone their life is not important because they AREN'T ALIVE? Their life wouldn't be important because THEY DON'T HAVE ONE. Similarly so, I NEVER USE the life reason." aren't alive in your eyes. thats what the whole argument was about. percievement. you can sit there and find every excuse to say that it is not alive where i can say it is. it wont matter. but either it had the potential to be. it had every same course of life to take as you would have as a fetus. to take that away from the world would be just as murder. My opponents conclusion: "I'm sorry to say, but my opponent's argument is completely illogical and filled with strawmans. He hasn't even come to the understanding that living isn't necessarily make you a person - which I have you used as a measurement of justification for abortion. My opponent seriously needs to pay attention next time." ilogical? how? because you didnt want to argue half the points i made, and the one argument you did have you keep attacking from the same side and same angle? whose case is really filled with holes? and yes for the fifth time now i have come to the understanding that living does not mean human. human fetus = living. and if you read any of my arguments which i doubt you understood, you would realize that. And I need to pay better attention next time? lets see here (re-reads case) hmm..... (reads again) hmmmmmmm................. (asks strangers opinion) yeah i dont think so pal... contradiction big time. ok now that this debate is over, i would like him to know that i am thankful to him for taking up this debate and giving me wholehearted responses. I have no vendetta towards him because i know this is just a debate. From what i have heard from his case i am not so sure he feels the same about me though unfortunately. but oh well. THANKS BYE