Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: Abortion is wrong

A person doesn't abort a fetus. They don't set out with the purpose of killing something that "is not alive." If that was all they were doing no one would make a fuss. No one's going to arrest me if I break a stone. What they are killing is the potential for that fetus to move to the next stage of human life, a baby. Fetuses left alone will not stay fetuses, they turn into children, which is why they are aborted. It's not that people don't want a fetus, it's that they don't want a child. The whole purpose of abortion is built around a pro-life concept. That the fetus will turn into a child the mother doesn't want to have. If a fetus stayed a fetus there wouldn't be a point to abortion in the first place. There wouldn't be any inconveniences or health issues. It is the fact that human fetuses turn into human babies that makes people want to get an abortion. Subconsciously pro-choicers are admitting that that fetus will inconvenience them because it will be most definitely be a living human with a few months, even if it is uncertain whether it is human at the moment. By killing an eagle egg you get the same fine as if you shoot an eagle. It has the same end effect, whether the egg is an eagle or not. A potential life is destroyed. It's the same with abortion. Whether it is a human or not now, a human fetus will become a human. A human with a life, experiences, and memories. The potential human may become pro-choice or pro-life, or not care and smoke weed its whole life, but at least it will get to experience life. By aborting a fetus you are destroying a lifetime of experiences, whether good ones or bad ones.From high school bio is the seven requirements for life which fetuses match all of except perhaps the seventh, the ability to reproduce. However 3 year olds can't reproduce either so unless you are going to argue that the killing of 3 year olds is ok as well you cannot argue that a fetus is not living. The argument seems to be saying that unless you have experienced all of life, you do not have the capability to be a life. Well is a virgin a human? Again one of the 7 requirements for life is reproduction, something virgins haven't experienced. So why are they human and a fetus isn't? Because they have the capability to reproduce (in most circumstances). This proves the point that it is not experience itself that makes one alive, but rather the capability to one day experience. A fetus can one day experience and is therefore considered a living human.The human species as a whole fulfills those 7 requirements of life. So it doesn't matter therefore if a fetus or a virgin do not fulfill one of them. A tadpole is still considered the same species frog, though it doesn't have all the capabilities of a frog. Humans, like all animals go through multiple phases of life. Being a fetus is just one of those phases of life. You yourself were a fetus once, and you yourself have already passed that stage of life. Many seem to have this elitist view that as you have already passed that stage of life you are superior to said fetus. That you hold the power of life and death over that child simply because you are no longer in that stage of life. It's similar to when someone assumes they're superior intellectually merely because they are older. In this case however, instead of ending with a stuck up person and an annoyed person, you end up with a dead person and an arrogant person who believes the death was morally justifiable. I will never be pro-choice. Even if there's a chance a fetus isn't a human I'd rather err on the side of life."For the mental health of the future child, sometimes abortion is a good option". This is a direct quote from a debate with a pro-choicer. Under that logic, for the "mental health of the future child" I should be able to kill anyone with a mental health problem. The logic is dangerously bordering on the logic of fascist Germany, that those with mental health issues are not human and do not have the same rights as humans. Babies do not have the same mental capacity as a fully grown human either. So under that logic killing babies is fine. It is getting very close to a dangerous ideology in which killing the old and young is ok because they do not have the same abilities as me or you. I have more thoughts and feelings than a baby. A philosopher probably has deeper thoughts than me. Can I morally kill a baby? Can that philosopher morally kill me? It is an odd train of thought. Because someone thinks more does not make them more of a person. A person in a coma thinks at the same levels or even less than a fetus. Can I kill them? No! If they come out again they will have the same feelings I do, and advanced thought. They are still considered human. So how is it different with fetuses? Even if they don't have advanced thought now, they will later. So just like someone in a coma they should be considered a human being. You can't cherry pick. Are people in comas AND fetuses not human? Or, as we should argue, are people in comas and fetuses both human? The latter should be true.One major argument pro-choicers throw out a lot is that it could inconvenience a mother financially. But the whole "it's too expensive" argument is freaking immoral. No matter what your views are, the question should be whether or not that fetus is a human not whether or not there's enough money to keep it fed and alive. It’s expensive to keep a person in a nursing home too.So here we must weigh what is important. Are money problems more important than death? Because whether or not a human fetus is a living being, it will one day be a human being and by killing that fetus you are killing that future human being. (S)he hasn't experienced life yet, but it will if you do not abort it. No matter what you say you have to admit that by killing that fetus, you are killing that future human. There is nothing that can be argued in the contrary.And that future human could be great. They could change the world. Maya Angelou. Malcolm X. Steve Jobs. Bill Clinton. Regina Louise. Dr. Wayne Dyer. Eric Clapton. Dave Pelzer. Tom Monaghan. What do they all have in common? They weren't wanted by their birth parents, they all might have had “terrible lives” (an argument I’ve heard put forth. They might have a bad life if they’re allowed to live. But they might have a great one). But sure they should have all been aborted depriving the world of some of its best.I must now put another point forward. Let's look at this argument completely from an outside perspective with no opinions or thoughts influencing our decisions. Let's say it is unsure whether a fetus can be considered human. Is it not better to be unsure and abortion free, in case there is even the slightest chance it is a human life? Do you think pregnancy is worse than death? Because even if you don't THINK a fetus a human life, (and there is no objective answer or there wouldn't be a debate on this) you must admit that if your opinion may end pain and discomfort, and mine may end a death, wouldn't you rather (even if you were 99% sure of your opinion) a life potentially saved is worth more than a life potentially set back?﻿