Abortion is Generally Immoral.

It's possible I owe Con an apology, though I don't think I do. I was simply pointing out that his arguments were irrelevant and some were weak. This was not an attack against him but his arguments.He seems to fundamentally misunderstand what a debate is. Con believes that a debate is won with quantity over quality, when if fact it is quality over quantity. Con has presented ten points and I effectively defeated all ten. Rather than rebut my argument and my response to his, he spent his last round in completely irrelevant discussion.I hope Con takes these words to heart and learns that in order to win a debate, you need good arguments. Not the most arguments. My argument given in the first round was both valid and sound and since I bear the burden of proof, that was my job. On top of making an opening argument, Con needed to refute my argument and show why it can not be used to support my conclusion.He failed to do this. As such, I extend my arguments and urge you to vote Pro. I will, however, respond to some of the things he said in his previous round since they do pertain to the debate.In actuality, I was repeating that abortion is wrong because it takes away an innocent human's life, not child. However, I do occasionally use "child" to refer to a preborn human and there is precedent for doing so. A pregnant woman is said to be "with child," and doctors will even refer to wanted embryos or fetus' as a baby or child.Additionally, even the dictionary recognizes that fetus' are children. [1] In fact, the word "fetus" comes from the Latin word meaning "offspring." [2]I have given ample scientific and philosophical evidence that a living human exists in the womb, and Con has given no evidence to support his claim that there isn't a human, and that human should not be valued. He has offered no proof, therefore my argument stands.I have already responded to Con's objection about the first trimester, but to reiterate while the embryo may not be independent, she is still a separate entity -- not separate as in separated from, but separate as in another, or different from. He has not refuted my rebuttal so my response to this objection stands from last round.Additionally, I did explain why raped women should not be able to have abortions. We should punish the rapist with harsh penalties, not the child. If a rapist is on trial, a police officer would not give the raped woman a gun and allow her to shoot him herself. As such, the preborn child should not be killed for the rapist's crime.Also consider this scenario: A woman is raped, but ends up keeping the child (I've heard that six out of ten women who are raped and become pregnant end up keeping the child, but I don't have any sources for this). The child grows into a normal two-year-old but suddenly starts to take on the features of the rapist. This reminds her so much of the rape that she now can't stand to even look at her child, and she now finds that she hates the child. Should she be able to kill the child? I would hope your answer is no. But then you must understand that there's no fundamental difference between a child in the womb and outside; they are both living, human children. You would have to show why it would be acceptable to kill that same child while inside the womb.I have also shown why getting an abortion would not help the woman at all, from a textbook on abortion.I have not lied about Con's position and he did nothing last round to further bolster his arguments.I should point out that I do not look foolish at all. I have four premises which support my conclusion. My argument is both valid and sound. You use ten bad arguments to support your point. Ten bad arguments does not make a good one.Let's say there is a burning house and you decide to help out. You grab a bucket and run to a spigot, but to your horror you realize the water is going through the bottom because there's a giant hole in it. You see nine more buckets, each with holes in the bottom. Do you combine all ten buckets and then you're suddenly able to help put out the fire? No. The water would still go through all ten buckets.I'm not sure what Con means when he is trying to critique my third premise. He has not shown how the embryo/fetus could have committed a crime worthy of being put to death. He has also not shown why the preborn are not alive and are not human, especially when embryologists (who are the experts) know there is a living human, and even sophisticated pro-choice philosophers fully admit the humanity of the preborn.I believe I have fully shown why my arguments stand and Con's don't. Please vote Pro.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...;