Abortion is right(pro) or wrong(con)

"(i)Has no will to live (it doesn't even know what a "will" or "life" is)" My opponent is using the word "will" too freely here, and it is rather absurd. A tree doesn't have a "will", as a tree doesn't have a mind and it isn't a person. A "will" is defined as: (i) The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action [1] (ii) Used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal [2] Trees don't have brains, or any type of conscious mental faculties, desires, or any conscious expression at all. Thus, my opponent has presented a false-analogy[3] . She is also committing the anthropomorphic fallacy by attributing human attributes to non-human things[4]. In order to have a will, you must have mental and conscious faculties and be able to consent. A fetus has none of these things which are required for a will by definition. Therefore, this section of my argument goes through. As far as DNA, that obviously has nothing to do with a "will" either (DNA has no conscious mind). This is due to natural biological functions and processes. "(ii) Has not developed the ability to feel any pain" My opponent assumes that killing life necessarily implies murder, or an unethical action. This is false, because when I step on an ant that isn't murder. Why? Because it doesn't have the same rights as us. This is because he doesn't have a will to live, like we have a will to live. It doesn't feel pain, and has no consciousness. Terminating a first or second trimester fetus does no more harm than stepping on ant in reality. My opponent seems to assume that any life which is terminated is unethical. This is of course, absurd. We kill animals to eat, step on ants, and kill people who are about to harm someone really bad. Its not wrong to kill any type of life. My opponent's argument rests upon the wild notion that its wrong to kill any type of life. Why believe such a bizarre thing? "(iii) Has not developed any consciousness or self-awareness" Same as above. Who cares if we are killing a life? Why is that wrong? What makes it wrong? Killing people like us takes away their conscious desire to live, it hurts them, and the people they have developed relationships with. Something is only wrong if there is harm done. A fetus cannot think to himself "I want to live", it simply doesn't have that capacity yet. A fetus (in the first and second trimester) cannot feel any pain, it doesn't have the capacity. A fetus of this nature simply doesn't have the capacity to be harmed in any meaningful sense. If there is no harm done, there is nothing immoral about it. My opponent says: "There is harm done. You are doing something against someone's will, and you are killing someone (or something if you prefer), so you are hurting them one way or another." - Con That is nonsense. A fetus doesn't even have the capacity to have a "will"! A "will" derives from conscious desires by definition, and my opponent concedes that a fetus doesn't have that capacity. Thus, my opponent's entire argument is useless. My Opponent's Points A fetus is a life. The argument for this point, or evidence is in round 2.Abortion kills. As it says in point 1, a fetus is a life, therefore terminating/disposing of it, is killing. --- It's not hard to see that the points my opponent is making do not actually help her to establish the conclusion that abortion is wrong. Even if a fetus is a life, and even if abortion does kill it; that doesn't make it wrong. My opponent assumes that if someone takes a life, that's wrong. That doesn't follow at all. I gave examples in this round showing that its not always wrong to kill. --- My argument was simple. Abortion in the first or second trimester is only wrong, if the fetus (i) Has a will to live, or (ii) Can feel Pain, or (iii) Is conscious. A fetus in the first or second trimester does not (i) Have a will to live, and it is not the case that the fetus (ii) Can feel pain, or that the fetus (iii) is conscious. Therefore, abortion in the first and second trimester is not wrong. This is how abortions should be done, and how around 90% of them are done. Just because some people do it wrong (such as doctors doing it in the third trimester), that doesn't mean abortion in general is wrong. Conclusion My opponent got confused and didn't know what a "will" was. She also rests her arguments on the assumption that if you take a life, that is wrong. That doesn't follow. Only taking specific kinds of life, in certain kinds of situations are wrong. Thus, her argument fails. I succeeded as I showed there is no harm done with proper abortion, thus, there is nothing unethical about it. The fetus isn't being hurt, as it doesn't have pain receptors. It has no conscious thoughts, so it cannot think "I want to live". Thus, nobody's rights are being infringed upon. My opponent's argument fails to show that abortion is immoral. My argument succeeds in showing there is nothing immoral about abortion. Sources [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://rationalwiki.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...