Abortion is generally morally wrong.

Thank you, DakotaKrafick, for your response. From what I've read of your work, this will be quite an interesting debate! If you don't mind, let's get right to it!Definitions: Abortion: The termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus, specifically when that termination is medically induced [1]. Zygote: A cell resulting from the union of two gametes; a fertilized ovum [2]. Argument: It is generally morally wrong to kill a newborn baby. There is no significant moral difference between a newborn human baby and a human zygote. Abortion results in the killing of a human zygote. Therefore, abortion is generally morally wrong. As this is a logically sound argument—that is, the conclusion "abortion is generally morally wrong" follows necessarily from the premises—it is incumbent upon DakotaKrafick to demonstrate that one or more of the premises is not true. If my opponent fails to do so, then my position is justified: Abortion is generally morally wrong.Defending 1:I feel no need to defend (1) because it seems to be prima facie true. Unless my opponent is ready to justify infanticide, I am nearly sure that we will all be in agreement that it is morally wrong to kill a newborn child. However, if my opponent would like to disagree, the question he must answer is "when is it morally permissible to kill a newborn baby?" Keep in mind that the premise—it is generally morally wrong to kill a newborn baby—requires that his answer be a commonplace situation that makes infanticide generally morally acceptable.Defending 2:As I see it, there are only 4 differences between a zygote and a newborn child: Size Level of development Environment Dependency I do not see that any of these differences are morally significant. Yao Ming is much larger than I am. Does that give him a right to kill me? My parents are more developed than I am, both mentally and physically. Does that give them the right to kill me? How does the trip down the birth canal—a trip of less than a foot—change the nature of the fetus? If I roll over in bed at night, do I experience such a change to my nature? Does the man dependent on a dialysis machine have fewer rights than I do, with my healthy kidneys? Thus, I do not see that any of the 4 differences between a zygote and a newborn child are morally significant. My opponent must demonstrate that either I have overlooked a difference, or that one of these differences is morally significant.Defending 3:I do not think that any well-informed, intellectually honest person will consider this claim controversial, but I will defend it nonetheless. I would also like to add that the premise is inclusive of all of the stages of embryonic development: A zygote, an embryo, or a fetus. The term zygote is simply the most consistent with the context of the argument. The presupposition here is that the zygote is both (3a) alive, and (3b) human. Now this is not meant in the same sense as a skin cell is alive and human. The difference—and it seems to be a morally significant difference—is that a human skin cell, when left to itself, will never be anything more than a human skin cell. That is what it is, by nature. The zygote, however, will continue to develop as a member of the human community. That is what it is, by nature. Before defending either (3a) or (3b), I would like to include a few quotes from pro-choice advocates who admit that abortion kills a fetus. This is so it can be seen that this is not simply the pro-life stance, but that both critics and contenders cede that abortion kills a fetus."Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions...we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death." — Naomi Wolf [3] "I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus." — Faye Wattleton [4]Defending 3a:To say that something is alive is to say that it has at least the capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction [5]. Some definitions include more; some less. It is clear, however, that the human organism possesses these qualities from conception to death—more evidence that the human life is a continuum of the same duration. If my opponent wishes to contend this point, it must be demonstrated that a zygote is indeed not alive—either that the definition of life presented is insufficient, or that the zygote does not fulfill the definition given.Defending 3b: Again, I see this to be a properly basic understanding of the nature of the fetus. It comes from human parents, it has the genetic makeup of a human, and, if left to the natural process, it becomes clear that it is human in nature. If it is not human in nature, then what is it? If it is not human, when does it become human? It seems clear that by scientific and rational standards, the fetus is human in nature.Conclusion:I hope that in this argument I have laid a sufficient groundwork to demonstrate that abortion is indeed generally morally wrong. As a reminder, the argument I am defending is as follows: It is generally morally wrong to kill a newborn baby. There is no significant moral difference between a newborn human baby and a human zygote. Abortion results in the killing of a human zygote. Therefore, abortion is generally morally wrong. The argument is logically sound. Therefore, in order to defeat the work I have done here, my opponent must demonstrate that one of the premises is not true. To demonstrate that (1) is false, my opponent must answer the question "when is it morally permissible to kill the unborn?" with a situation that justifies infanticide in general, not just specific cases in a moral gray area. To demonstrate that (2) is false, my opponent must evince a morally significant difference between a human zygote and a newborn human baby. To demonstrate that (3) is false, he must show that a zygote is not alive, or is not human, or both. If he fails to do so, then the conclusion is warranted, and my opponent must cede that abortion is generally morally wrong.I look forward to a great debate! May the best argument win. [1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3]: Naomi Wolf, “Our Bodies, Our Souls,” The New Republic, October 16, 1995, 26.[4]: Faye Wattleton, “Speaking Frankly,” Ms., May / June 1997, Volume VII, Number 6, 67.[5]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...