Abortion

Hi thanks for the debate.I believe that abortion should be permissible under certain circumstances such as when the mother's life is in danger, when it's the result of rape or other similar harms, and when the mother does not feel ready to bear a child yet and decides to have an abortion under a certain timeframe. In my case, it would be before the third-trimester, where after this, it is believed that the fetus develops neurological abilities. Ultimately, one sees that my arguments favor the woman's decisions over the fetus because it was the woman's decision to have a child in the first place (generalization.) Moreover, I do not deem a fetus to be the same as a baby for the difference is a ball of cells vs working organs. Therefore, the definition of a "baby" for me, is after the 3rd trimester. If a mother decides to have an abortion after the third-trimester, then it really depends on the situation and reason for having an abortion at such a late timeframe. However, for the sake of time and character limits, I will limit it to the last assertion that made earlier (abortion before 3rd trimester is permissible.)Given my stance, I have to comment on the fact that CON makes many assertions with no supporting evidence. I will address them now:Abortion is Murder no matter what people say.Your assertion is weak when you do not provide a reason to why its considered murder. Your argument holds the same weight as me saying that, "I am god." You cannot prove nor disapprove my assertion without further details of my definition of God. As soon as the baby is created it is has a soul. Lets assume that as soon as fertilization occurs, the fetus has a soul. If this is true then how does one differentiate between a fetus' souls and other souls such as dogs, pigs, and oranatangs? (sp) Also, what makes an organism having a soul protect them from envrionmental, social, and moral factors? ...People say it is the women's choice whether or not to abort. People can say things but that doesn't mean its true. Youre right, women have no rights whatsoever. A baby or if you want to call it a fetus is feeding off of you but that doesn't mean it is part of you. Im assuming youre saying that it's an individual since its fertilization, even if this is true, it doesn't prove that mothers cannot abort. The baby is using her for her resources. Without her, the baby cannot live. So why is it moral for someone to steal one's resources without having any moral consequences for his/her actions? Your statement is very hard to prove because it would be hard to define someone as an individual when it doesnt have neurological or physical abilities whatsoever. If you can't seriously take care of your baby, put it up for adoption, don't kill him/her because you were irresponsible and became pregnant when you didn't want to/or couldn't take care of her/him.The real question is, is it better to not live at all or to live a life of torture?If the mother isn't ready to have a child, according to you, she still should suffer those 9 months, not taking into consideration how she became pregnant and if shes a single-mother. After those 9 months of suffering, she will then have to force her child away because she cannot take care of her. Clearly, adoption centers are a great place for children to grow up in. I'm just surprised that the general population haven't given up their babies yet to adoption centers.