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

Thank you, Con. The majority of Con's statements in the last round were rebuttals to things that had already been rebutted and not defended from my first argument. No new ground was gained there. The rest of the rebuttals were simply rebutting my points that didn't really matter, and in fact I will be the first to admit that they weren't strong. However, my other point stands. Rebuttals "A person is an individual substance that has a rational nature" And, pray tell, in what way does a zygote have a rational nature without even having a brain? Con claimed that even a zygote is a human, and has used this quote that proves that false. The brain is not even the first thing to begin developing, so there is plenty of time to abort it before the brain is made. An interesting sentence Con said was "We know from DNA that it is a unique human being", the "it" referring to the zygote, embryo, or fetus. If this is true, then an extension following Con's logic is as follows: A human is anything that is made of human DNA. Sperm and ovum are made up of human DNA. Sperm die when a person with a male body masturbates (I apologize for the crude example), ovum die when someone has a period. Therefore, masturbating or having a period is infanticide, as well as cutting yourself (even though that's not good), swabbing your mouth for DNA, spitting, and a plethora of other things, because you are detaching cells from your body to die. My point for that whole last paragraph is that since a zygote is simply a clump of cells, it is not a human, at least not in the moral sense. There is no reason to think that killing a few cells is immoral, clearly the zygote is not alive until it has at least a partially developed brain. I do not mean alive in the scientific sense, I mean it as in a being that is conscious, and alive is the closest word to describe that. Conscious is also better word to describe it than sentient, because it is obvious that babies are conscious, whether or not they are sentient. What is the problem with killing something that doesn't have a brain? Is it any worse to have an abortion while still in zygote stage than to mow your lawn? After all, neither the zygote or the grass is conscious, and if anything the grass is more conscious than the zygote.[1] Con also stated that I still need to prove that abortion is immoral in some circumstances. They then proceeded to rebut the arguments that were from my first post yet again, making the argument more redundant than it already was. The reason that I do not need to prove that abortion is immoral in some circumstances is because we are both trying to argue that, at least, there are times in which abortion is immoral, or more specifically, should not be allowed. This still stands whether or not Con is exclusively Pro-Life. However, if I were to prove that it is always fine to abort, then I would have still lost. Attempting to prove my Pro-Life arguments wrong as well as my Pro-Choice arguments is redundant, although Pro-Choice isn't an accurate description because I am not arguing for a woman's right to her body. As Con stated, I did not directly do anything with their dichotomy. However, I do not agree with it, as even if a zygote is considered human since it has cells that only belong to Homo sapiens, it is still as unconscious as a skin cell. However, the largest mistake in Con's argument is that they failed to provide an adequate response to my main point, the situations with babies that have lethal birth defects. This does not have to do with it having rights or not, or that its life isn't worth living, it is simply stating that it will not HAVE a life, and will instead either be aborted sooner or die in more pain later. It is not even about living to day three, if a baby is born with its brain outside of its head it will die in seconds or at best minutes. The only time that it lives outside the womb will be in more pain than abortions in early stages cause. Conclusion I would like to emphasize again that Con mostly ignored my last argument, and instead continued to attack my first argument and the points that were of little value. Con, thank you for an interesting debate, it was quite enjoyable. With that, I encourage all of you to vote Pro! Source: 1. http://www.pri.org...