Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: pro choice

Firstly, unless I missed it, you still have not answered my hypothetical question regarding mandatory organ donation to sick people. Why is this?One thing we are taught in law is not to accept any fact until proper evidence is produced and you check those sources you produced and tell me what the problem is with them. You never used sources like that in an argument because of the validity of the facts become a question. Abortion is murder but became known as a woman's right to choose after the case Roe vs. Wade tried. Why do you think abortion in society was considered murder? Point out atleast one phrase in those source which talks about the fetus being a parasite and has evidence to show that it is indeed a fetus?You gave me a page from a pro-life page, basically biased by default because they are trying to convince readers that their agenda is the correct one. I gave you four scientific and unbiased sources that defined a parasite-host relationship between two organisms. Not two species. Two organisms. If you cannot see how the fetus fits that definition, which you clearly cannot, then you are beyond being reached by explanation.So are you trying to say that a person who has lost the functioning brain has lost their identity as well?Perhaps. But, regardless, their life is not dependent on the body of another, therefor there is no need for their death if someone does not want to be involved with them. I am saying this to cut off another rebuttal about euthanizing comatose patients. Our brian does not gives us identity. DNA gives us human identity and the human heart gives us life within our body or maintains it.If it is not a brain or a consciousness that gives us our identity, but rather the simple possession of human DNA and the act of being kept alive by a heart, then again, I contend that a fetus and a human liver are equally alive and deserve comparable rights. Why does it have nothing to do with their potential when the six month old baby was a fetus? Dont that demonstrate the potential aspects of a fetus?This is absolute nonsense. I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Abortion is the killing of the fetus because it has a beating heart and according to you it is alive. If something is alive and you are in the process of destroying its existence completely, isnt that the process of killing it?I think I have said before that nobody kills a fetus because it is alive, or because it has a heart. Please pay attention to the implications of sentence structure. People might kill a fetus because it is dependent on their body and they do not want it to reside in their body anymore, and there is no way to remove it without causing its death. Again, i am in Criminal Law and i was taught that fetuses are protected by homicide laws. So it isnt about what you agree with or not, it is about what the laws are. Why do you think when the a accused is accused of murdering a woman and if she is pregnant, the District Attorney will institute a charge of double homicides against the accused? The homicide laws comes into effect when the life of the mother is taken or when the life of the fetus istaken without the consent of the mother. Let me ask you this, if a licensed doctor performs an abortion on a woman without her permission or consent and knowledge, what do you think the DA will do? The DA will institute a chage of homicide? I am not in criminal law so I almost hesitate to say this, but it seems as though you were taught false or, at best, misleading information.http://www.chronline.org/Feticide%20versus%20Homicide.pdf But according to doctors and scientists you refer to something as having life (and i quote life not alive) when they can be able to distinguish it from the dead. What part of this statement are you having a tough time with? It's relevance. Did i ever say that you referred to the fetus as being dead? English is my first language. We are having a problem in this debating because you are basically just giving your opinion without lack of evidence. I understand that you do not contest this fact so then why are you arguing about life then? This is not what i state but what scientists and doctors states. That is why i mentioned it for the third time because i believe you have a tough time understanding the true aspect of the statement i made. I dont want to hear because something is alive does not mean it has life. I need evidence to back that up.Okay. I think I understand your train of thought and why you keep harping on the whole not dead = alive thing. If this is incorrect, point out where I went wrong.Anything that is distinguishable from the dead = aliveAnything that is alive = a lifeThe act of ending a life = killingKilling = murderMurder = homicideIf this is a correct summary of your line of thinking, then you draw no distinctions between different forms of life, their capabilities, and the rights they are afforded, and additionally, you draw no distinction between murder and any other method of ending any form of life. It would mean that shooting someone in pure self defense = homicide. Accidentally striking a pedestrian who was not in a cross walk = homicide. Slaughtering a chicken for food = homicide. Plucking a flower = homicide. Using antibacterial soap = homicide. If this is incorrect, then I actually do not have any idea why you keep bringing this point up, because clearly you are capable of a) distinguishing between different forms of life b) realizing that life with higher functions are granted more rights under the law, andc) understanding that the law does not protect any form of life from being ended by any means.Every miscarriage could be investigated if the laws permitted it to investigate it. The fetus is protected by human rights to certain extents.People estimate that as few as 15% and as high as 78% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, many times before the woman even knew she was pregnant. Even on the low end of the estimate, that is a lot of women to subject to a homicide investigation directly after they experience miscarriage. Then, if it has been convincingly shown the abortion was not 'spontaneous' (how? I have no idea), then comes the problem of deciding how responsible a woman is. What if she smokes or drinks, possibly causing a fatally premature birth? What if she fell down a flight of stairs, how will she prove she didn't do it on purpose? What if she stays in a relationship with an abusive man who eventually beat her so bad she miscarried; is this not causing death through inaction? What if she didn't obey her doctor's order of strict bed rest? What if she went on a roller coaster ride or ate some sushi? What if she just stressed herself out too much? How much jail time do the women in each of these situations deserve?