Abortion is wrong

R5. Rebuttals:"So now your criteria for a person are: not a single cell or not a small collection of cells. Why? Babies are small collections of cells too, size is relative, they are still people. " The criteria has not changed (see previous rounds for evidence of this). We have established that a zygote (single cell) and small collection of subdivided cells which were formerly a zygote (embryo) cannot be persons. A person is a human who no longer needs to develop within its mother's womb. An infant is a "person", as it has passed the zygotic, embryonic, and fetal stages of its mother's pregnancy -- and therefore can no longer be classified as a cell or cells. "Children are still a bunch of cells, just like an embryo. Embryos can have distinguishable features, every embryo is different, because they all have a unique set of DNA. The DNA code forms right at conception, it is not formed later in the pregnancy. "Children are considered persons, so they are not merely a "bunch of cells". They are living beings who are able to experience pain and emotion, one single cell or subdivided cells cannot think or feel. Moreover, the features of a fetus do not begin to develop until mid-stage pregnancy (as I have previously specified), so Pro is incorrect in stating that an embryo has distinguishable features. It will develop its DNA within time and if it becomes a fetus. There is a 75% chance of a miscarriage within the first 1-2 weeks of pregnancy, so the "if" in whether a zygote develops into a fetus is rather significant. [6. ] . https://imgur.com...We were all essentially born as a result of biological lottery. This is to the extent that losing a "zygote" is far more likely than keeping one. I would add that this should demonstrate how fragile the existence of this cell is, and how, due to this fragility, it cannot be compared to a person. The probability of a zygote surviving is low, yet the probability of an infant surviving upon being born is high. Note: it can now survive without its mother. "Environment does not determine personhood, what if a bay is in an artificial incubator? Does it not become a person until it left the incubator? "We've already determined what defines "personhood". In this scenario, the child has been born, so it is indeed a person -- regardless of whether it requires an incubator or not. "You keep saying you showed that an embryo is not a person, and I have refuted your reasoning for it, but you just try to refute that in turn by saying some other criteria has been meet in a being who is missing one criteria. "Pro is again claiming to have made non-existent refutations. He has not refuted my argument on the differences between a person and an embryo. This is primarily because he cannot provide any valid counter-arguments to it (because it is based on fact). An embryo: a thing at a rudimentary stage that shows potential for development. A person: a human being regarded as an individual. An embryo cannot be a person. "But I talked about all the criteria, so it doesn't matter which criteria a being shows, because none of the criteria are legitimate arguments for personhood. "The criteria are part of legitimate arguments for personhood because they are the correct criteria for personhood, and indeed non-personhood. "You've thrown this definition around, it does not back up your reasoning at all, nor does it back up mine actually. The question of an "individual" is still not settled. An embryo can be called an individual because it has its own genetics, even though it needs a form of life support to live. "Pro has failed to explain how the definition does not support my reasoning. Unlike Pro's, my reasoning has remained consistent throughout this debate and I have used the appropriate definitions and citations to support it. Pro has not used any supporting evidences for his case. Example: Pro failed to define what "wrong" was, what a fetus is, and what his criteria for personhood are. "Some people do not have the brainpower to reason, some people are amoral, some are unconscious (for a time), not everybody has a family, not everyone owns property, not everybody follows laws. All the above criteria can be non-existent in a being for you to call that being a person. "These people are still categorized as "persons" who are accountable to and protected by the law. An "amoral" person will be confronted with legal consequences if they are shown to have violated the law. An "unconscious" person is protected by the law to the extent that medically trained professionals have an obligation (known as a "duty of care") to assist them. This is because this individual is a person -- with rights. Rights are given to people, not cells. "You say a child does not have the criteria, but will develop them. I can say that exact thing about an embryo, because an embryo will develop into a newborn, in turn developing into a grown adult. I also have another question, is a fetus at, let's say 22 weeks, not a person? It cannot survive without the mother but it has developing organs, including a brain, it also develops pain receptors around this time. " A child is able to experience pain and emotion, unlike a cell or a small group of cells. Pro's point on abortion at 22 weeks is irrelevant, as the vast majority of abortions occur before the 16th week of pregnancy. Only a minute 1% of abortions occur after week 21. [7. ] . https://imgur.com...If Pro had reviewed the citations used (in this case, citation #1), he would be aware that his point here does not follow. In conclusion, Pro has neglected to do the following: 1. ) Define what, according to him, "wrong" is. 2. ) Define what, according to him, a "person" is.3. ) Address my citations. 4. ) Adequately address my arguments (in responding to specific points made in them). 5. ) Provide any sufficient counter-arguments.6. ) Show how abortion is wrong (the absence of his own definition of "wrong" seemingly rendered him unable to do this).