There are times both in which abortion should and should not be allowed

My thanks to Pro.Defence of ArgumentPro has claimed that I have taken the Pro-Life side and that is true, but not exclusively so. While my counter argument was Pro-Life, I showed than neither Pro-Life nor the Pro-Choice arguments presented were valid.As I stated in my opening argument:If the unborn are not human, no justification for elective abortion in necessary. But if the unborn are human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate.I laid out this dichotomy that Pro completely failed to address.Unborn are HumanI have given a valid definition from an embryology book that attests to the fact that the zygote developmental stage is factually when a new human organism comes into being. Instead of refuting this claim with any scientific claim or knowledge to the contrary, Pro attempts to refute scientific fact with an imaginary blending of colours that represents the developmental stages of the unborn child. He is basing his opinion on whether the child looks human, kinda like people did with blacks a couple hundred years ago. Would this mean that the children of Thalidomide weren't human because they didn't look like us? Or does this mean that those who are more developed have greater rights than those who do not, because development doesn't cease at the vaginal passage. Babies and youths, and even teens would not deserve equal rights. The unborn either is or is not human. We know from DNA that it is a unique human organism.Pro didn't question the validity of humans having inalienable rights. Since Pro has failed to discredit the fact that the unborn are individual distinct human beings and did not disagree with the concept of fundamental human rights, my argument stands in its entirety.Pro's ArgumentsArgument 1 - Human Interaction with SocietyPro completely failed to address the two counter arguments to his reasoning that the rights of the child can override the rights of the mother. He based this on the positive influence that a child can have on society.As such he has failed to uphold his argument why abortion is sometimes wrong.Argument 2 - Bad Future for Mother and Child when Rape InvolvedHere I went really soft on Pro. Instead of noting that the circumstance of life have nothing to with the intrinsic moral value of the child, I instead showed that the totality of scientific studies on this topic show just the opposite conclusion.Since Pro had no countering studies to the effect, his only response was that the study was of a small sample size. Yet the sample size was small because there were few women that she could find that had become pregnant through rape.However, Pro's premise is that if certain circumstances are not met, the child's life is not worth living. Once again this is contradictory to the premise of fundamental human rights and equality of people.Logically if you can kill someone who isn't going to have an ideal life then you should be allowed to kill someone who isn't having an ideal life. So the poor, homeless, heartbroken, war refugees have logically lost any right to live.And finally how do we determine how good of a life is worth living. Do you need to have 2 parents? Do you need to have a Ivy League college fund? State college fund? New car? Own a house? Rent a house? Not living on food stamps? Please tell me which life is not worth living, and I'll almost guarantee that there are users on this site who have lived through those conditions. Then tell me their life has no value.This whole argument like the one before is completely subjective and without basis in logic or fact. It is merely an appeal to emotions, and as such this argument has been disproven.Argument 3 - Act of MercySo once again Pro is applying a completely subjective criteria. He is assuming that certain lives are simply not worth living. Thus one's right to life is dependent on one's potential to live a long life. So logically someone who can live to 100 should have more rights than one who can only live to 50 who should have more rights than one who can only live to 10 should have more rights than someone who can only live to day 3.Once again this is a fundamental rejection of fundamental and inalienable human rights. One person saying that another's life is not worth living under certain circumstances. In fact, Pro is attempting to claim that how the mother may feel is why she has the right to murder her unborn child. That is like arguing that because the plantation owner may have his finances adversely affected that he has a right to enslave some blacks. inalienable rights must be upheld as true rights even when, or perhaps especially when, they are difficult to uphold. As such no one has the right to murder an innocent human being.Argument 4 - SentiencePro is arguing that development of sentience is the point of delineation for when abortion is or isn't permissible. This argument for partial right to abortion is defeated by both the Pro-Life and Pro Choice arguments.Since sentience is not yet realized at birth, philosophers like Peter Singer will argue that even infanticide is permissible [7]. The cow you eat for dinner shows greater signs of sentience than a new born. Thus since you can kill and eat a cow there is no reason that you couldn't kill a human newborn. So obviously, arguing that a lack of actualized sentience permits some abortions would also mean that it is always permissible to abort. This completely destroys Pro's argument.The Pro life refutation of this argument would counter that personhood is best described by the philosopher Boethius:A person is an individual substance that has a rational nature. [8]A substance maintains its identity through change. Thus you are you at all times from fertilization onward as your identity as the same orgainism remains constant.Additionally, rationality (and thus sentience) is not something that is added to a human by the mother or some other agent, but is rather an inherent attribute of humans that expresses itself to a greater degree over time. Thus rationality is not from the outside, but from the inside. This means that the nature of humans is to be rations creatures.I previously established that the unborn are humans, and since humans have a rational nature, humans are persons at every stages of life. As such the Pro-Life argument would preclude abortion at every stage of life based on the unborn being persons at every stage of life.Thus by making the sentience argument, Pro has lost the debate because by using sentience as the dividing line one is forced to take the arguments to their conclusions. If actualized sentience is the criteria, then even the killing or newborns is permissible. If merely having a rational nature that will express the inherent sentience through the stages of development is what makes us persons, then abortion is never permissible.ConclusionI have defended my original arguments and clearly shown why each of Pro's arguments fails to substantiate his argument. Furthermore, I have shown why Pro arguing that the development of sentience is the dividing line between permissibility and impermissibility of abortion has actually caused him to lose the entire debate. This is true because the only logical conclusions derived from this line of argument are that abortion is always permissible or never permissible.I thank Pro and look forward to his concluding round.References[7] http://www.utilitarian.net...[8] Liber de Persona et Duabus Naturis, ch. 3