First of all, I didn't argue weather or not its human life. Moreover, I am personally against abortions. So get those assumptions out of the way. Moreover, you have yet to address a single argument I have made. In stead, you have made excuses as to why they shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place. Personally, I am in agreement with what you said, but politically, creating a law about it would be at the very least, heavy handed, and destroy, or harm more lives than it saves. THAT was my argument. Moreover, you rapidly began employing logical fallacies that weakened your position. --Here I point out that you did not address a single one of my arguments, instead resorting to fallacies.

Moving on to the point I was actually trying to make. Laws preventing abortions all-together are heavy-handed, and erase the complexity of the situation. Here is one example of the birth control not being used. Religious parents of a teen forbidding it, because it is linked to sex. A teenager, or even a dependent adult, could easily get pregnant in said situation. It would ruin the life of said teenager, and would likely harm the child's life. Is it better to give a child a life of suffering, or to prevent the suffering from happening? In an ideal world, pregnancy would be a choice, with our current levels of technology, but our sociology prevents that, and to suggest otherwise denies human action, the same line of reason that enables socialist and communist thought. --In this paragraph I refute your assertion that pregnancies are truly a choice to most people

Now, instead of a heavy-handed law, we should be giving more care and education to people freely, as the majority of the public is remarkably uninformed about sex. This addresses the more complex social issues that surround unwanted pregnancies, thus preventing needless suffering, without being so heavy-handed.

Moving on to my personal views. I don't view human life as all that sacred. Death doesn't mean all that much to me. Human suffering, on the other hand, means a great deal to me. In most cases, abortion wont increase suffering in the world. However, many times having children will. I wish people would be more careful, and wait until they are stable enough to give the unborn child a good life as his parents, or maybe even adopt, thus increasing the happiness of someone who has actually lived life. And your answer to murdering a child, that would be just that, as it would cause the suffering of the parents.

To keep it short: the quantity of human life in the world is something I don't particularly care about, I am more concerned with increasing the quality of the lives that are already here, or will be here. Currently, however the quantity is interfering with the quality. I respect that you disagree for whatever reason, I would like to know why you feel the way you do. And If you feel I am wrong, then convince me. I am open to it, and my opinion has been changed by argument before. Also know I am typing this at shit-o-clock, so I may have misrepresented my opinions here, and will take the time later to go back over it and clarify as needed. --closing stuff. Saying I am open to actual argument.