Abortion is generally an immoral act

Regarding the chromosome number. You are correct, that was badly worded. If I may I would like to reword my statement. A human is a thing with two sets of 23 chromosomes (save for some malady). People with down syndrome would have two pairs of 23 chromosomes if the separation of the sister chroma-tides had gone normally. Now regarding my opponent's claim. My opponent claims that humans are unique because we can reason and comprehend the universe ectectect but fetus' cannot preform such functions. Thus I implore my opponent, if that is a key characteristic of a human (as he says it is) are fetus' then not human? In the next section it seems that my opponent is arguing against my analogy by saying that a fetus has a unique set of DNA and can grow on it's own. Regarding unique DNA: If unique DNA is a crucial component of a human then identical twins are not different people. They have the same DNA and thus, if my opponent's argument is true, they are the same human. Now regarding the parts and whole. It does not matter if the hair follicle cannot grow once it has been plucked. It is still a human. The same can be said for cells in our body. Theoretically a cell in our body could be kept alive thus, by my opponent's argument it too would be immoral to kill it. A zygote is a living human that relies on something else. A human cell is the same way. They are both human and they both live. They both could, theoretically, survive outside the womb/host. //Regarding size and environment, they are arguments pro-choicers less educated on the topic make.// Lol. I would not make those. //But what if the mother decides to breastfeed? The child can then only be cared for by the mother.// What? Which mother? If the birth mother decides to breast feed that has no bearing on whether or not the children can be cared for by the other mother. They still can hence my argument stands. Regarding the question: That would not be moral for the reason that the fetus has passed that stage at which it is no longer dependent. It can survive without the umbilical cord hence it is not dependent. Before that stage of independence is reached it can be aborted. //A fetus and infant are not incomparable. As I have shown, they are both living humans. A fetus is just a less developed infant./ The way you compared them was false as shown in the last round. //Most homeless people live off the generosity of others.// That is a rather blanket statement. Is there anything to support such a claim? //Their quality of life is drastically reduced by having to live on the streets// Just because their quality of living is reduced does not mean they can't survive. //A homeless person can't exactly just start farming crops because he would have to buy them first.// One actually could.... all one needs is to get seeds (which one could get by looking in any dumpster) and then plant them. The argument that people depend on their jobs is just not true. 2: Sentient would be able to explore and perceive the world independently (Save for crippling diseases) Regarding women, blacks and Jews: They were considered property but they were still considered people. The two are NOT mutually exclusive. For example blacks were part of a person but a person non-the less. //I have already illustrated why having a moral qualm against abortion does not pre-suppose a moral qualm against brushing, using a towel, etc. Abortion kills a living human, the other examples are merely a part of the larger whole and are not unique individuals.// Cross apply my parts and whole argument from above. //Honestly, I was hoping not to have to consider rape in this argument because it requires a whole new set of argumentation.// I'm sorry but it is an argument and I brought it up. So in the first paragraph all that is said is that you believe we should not punish the unborn. Ok, let's read on. //What I would like to know is why would killing the child before he is born be merciful? How do you know that the child would rather die than grow up in poverty?// It is true that one doesn't know that but, as you even said earlier, you standard of living is reduced and "often go hungry". So is it good to let a child live in poverty and "often go hungry" simply due to the fact that their mother was raped? Of course not, Adoption is not a possibility. Less than 1% of these types of pregnancies end in adoption.[1] So the claim that the baby could just be put up for adoption is just not viable since this rarely happens. //Is she now justified in killing the child? Would we be justified in killing the child to put him out of his misery if his mother was abusive?// What? I assume you mean a two year old child? If so the answer is no. This is again because the child is no longer directly dependent on the mother and is a person now. The answer is the same to the second question. I would like to thank my opponent for his response and I would like to apologize for my poor debating. This has been a terrible debate for me. [1] http://www.wikilaw3k.org...