Abortion

Putting your sources in the comments doesn't exactly count... but okay. 1. You're still arguing on a legal basis, and it still doesn't work. Since my stance is that abortion should not remain legal (as you stated), this argument fails. I think a fetus/embryo is a life separate from the mother which is not her property, and that she should not be allowed to kill it. If a woman's five year old kid is her property, do you still think it should be legal for her to kill it? Just because something's legal doesn't necessarily mean it's right. 2. And what about those babies? They're people too, and therefore a lot more people would die with abortion legal than illegal. Besides that, my original rebuttal still stands. 3. This argument is irrelevant and doesn't make sense. You have not rebutted any of the points I made, and have just repeated what you already stated. I could rebut this with the same rebuttal I made in the last round. 4. YOUR math is bad. Your numbers aren't any more significant just because you raised the ratio. Are you aware that 133,000 would fit into a billion over 7,518 times? (1) I should also probably note that there is nowhere near a billion people in the US. There are 311,591,917 people, about half of which are women, about half of which are Pro life, and even less of the Pro choice women having had an abortion. (2)(3) This leaves you with less than 77,897,979 women having abortions.(4) That's nowhere near a billion, and therefore 123,000 women have not been supposedly "saved" by abortion. And once again, my original rebuttal still stands for the most part. Just because abortion is slightly safer doesn't mean you should get an abortion because of that. The motive of abortion is almost never to save your own life; it's to avoid having a kid. And abortion does not save lives; you are excluding the lives of the unborn babies killed in abortion. 5. How can the parent even know if the child is handicapped when it's an embryo? And once again, why does the parent get to decide to kill it? Every human has every right to live; it shouldn't be the parent's decision. When I spoke of machines and features, I was talking about wheelchair ramps on buses, special job opportunities at Goodwill, and things like that. Once again, according to your logic, the parents should be allowed to kill the handicapped person at any age. If the parents can't afford something like the actual wheelchair, many charities can be of great help. There is still no need for abortion just because of a handicap, and it generally isn't the reason for abortion anyway. 6. That makes no sense. Have you ever heard of these things called homeless shelters and charities? Where I live, it's possible for a homeless person to get a hot meal every day. And do you have any proof that stealing food for your family is a common crime? Even if it's true, it's not a very serious crime like murder or a bank robbery. Honestly, I think this argument is kind of silly. You're basically saying it's wrong for poor people to have kids. 7. I thought I made this pretty clear. If abortion was illegal, there would be less unwanted pregnancies because the parents know abortion isn't an option. They would be more responsible beforehand, instead of taking care of things after the pregnancy has already started. Thus, less babies would come into the world unwanted. 8. I could rebut most of this with my original argument. What do you mean they haven't been "proven" to be humans? Fetus is obviously a stage of human life. In the same way that babies and the elderly are humans, fetuses and embryos are stages of human life too, and you haven't proven otherwise. 9. None of those arguments make sense. Babies are just as human when inside the womb as outside. Abortion shouldn't be an option since the other options would allow the person to live. And it wouldn't be like taking away adoption because there is absolutely no reason why adoption should be illegal, while there are many reasons why abortion should be. I don't know what you mean by "abortion is one of those abortions." 10. If there is an afterlife, you would know you could have existed if you hadn't been aborted. If there is no afterlife, you wouldn't know you existed no matter what stage you died at. According to this logic, it's okay to kill a man because they wouldn't know they ever existed. And why is it irrelevant? You haven't actually rebutted anything here. 11. You ignored my arguments, and instead rambled about technical terms and how fetuses don't count as babies. You didn't actually rebut any of my arguments. 12. Late term abortion is a type of abortion. The resolution was "Abortion", and you stated yourself that you would be arguing that abortion should be legal. Since you have apparently conceded to this argument, you are saying that abortion should not always be allowed. I have won this argument. 13. Read my argument carefully. "My point is, abortion is yet another beat of a pattern in which humans disregard a type of human life." In other words, abortion is wrong, but it's going to take a while for everyone to agree, just like these other cases of human discrimination. Sourcing isn't necessary because we all know that slavery was once legal, that Hitler killed Jews, and that abortion was legalized in this country. (1) http://www.wolframalpha.com... (2) http://quickfacts.census.gov... (3) http://www.debate.org... (4)http://www.wolframalpha.com...