Abortion is Generally Immoral.

Pro sourcesPro source [4] doesn't show up. Pro source [3], Its unclear what exactly information is being sourced here, Pro didn't copy anything from this page, so why is the link throw in here ? Spelling correctionIn the last round in my Reductio ad absurdum argument I said "constrain" where it should say "contain" Hopefully this was obvious but if not I am going to come back to that argument anyway, and who knows I might actually spell it correctly this time. Shifting the burden of Proof"Shifting the burden of proof is a kind of logical fallacy in argumentation whereby the person who would ordinarily have the burden of proof in an argument attempts to switch that burden to the other person, e. g. :If you don't think that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, then prove it! " [1]Pro says such things like. .. "Con has not sufficiently shown that some humans should not be protected while others should. " & "Con has not offered any compelling reasons why some members of humanity are valuable and should be protected while others are not and should not be. "Lets get something clear here, If I can show that Pro does not have a good argument to support the resolution then that's enough to negate the resolution. As such I don't have to prove that a child is valuable, or that a fetus isn't a person or that the world is not flat. "Pre born" is a deceptive termPro responds that fertilized cells that develop into children is more likely than the cells turning into a cause of death for the women, this is granted and does nothing to refute my point, cause my point was a LOGICAL point, not what is more likely to occur point (probability). Here is the problem, its not that pre born is deceptive in of its self, its how its being used in Pros argument. It becomes deceptive when you use the term "pre born" or "pre born child" to make something like a few human cells at fertilization into a human child. Are the few cells at say fertilization are human child ? no. Are the approximate 150 cells of a blastocyst a child ? no. Pro says. .. "Con mentioned embryos killed for their stem cells, but this is irrelevant to the debate, which is about abortions. No its not, Pros argument about what is a human being and thus has a right to life starts at fertilization. The point here is what a 3 day embryo is and what it isn't. In this case it is not a child. Few human cells = pre born child = childYou will recall my argument about how we should not equate the potentiality of something as the same as what it is or isn't. And that was the LOGICAL point here. Pro butchers my analogy here , in my analogy its the person who is being killed who is holding the metal & wood. It doesn't matter how he got killed cause the killer is using the "Potentiality" argument to claim that wood & metal is the same as a gun. To show you that Pro hasn't adequately responded to this logic objection I will use their own analogy provided in the last round. Pro takes a picture of a parrot with a Polaroid, so here is the question, that grey smudge is it a picture of the parrot or a grey smudge ? the answer is of course a grey smudge, and it isn't a picture of the parrot UNTIL it becomes the picture of the parrot. Does the fact that it has "potential" to develop into the picture of the parrot change the FACT that its not a picture of a parrot ? no. Like wise a few cells at human fertilization is not a child UNTIL it becomes a child. As such even if we grant the right to life to a child, it doesn't follow with logical necessity that therefore something that has the POTENTIAL to become a child has that same right. Once again this is why Pro uses the term "pre born child" to try and make something that isn't a child into a child so Pro can argue a moral equivalence that what rights you give to a child you also have to give to say the few cells at human fertilization. Its untenable to give the right to life to something just because contains human DNARemember according to Pro if something has human dna then its a "human being" and all human beings have a right to life.1) If something contains human DNA then its a human being and has a right to life2) Human sperm contains human dnaC) Therefore human sperm has a right to lifePro seeks a way out of this absurdity by making a distinction between a "FULL HUMAN BEING" and thus implying something having human dna that is not a full human being. So I ask the modest question, how are you determining which things are "full human beings" and thus have a right to life and which things are not "full human beings" and thus don't get a right to life ? Pro says. .. "Con continues to equivocate in his treatment of the word "human. " Sperm, cells on our nose, etc. , are not human as we are. They are parts of human bodies, but they are not valuable humans. Con continues to confuse parts with wholes. "First point, isn't it interesting that Pro implies a significance difference between things that have human DNA such as a sperm, and say adult humans the "valuable humans" as Pro puts it and that they "are not human as we are". That's the point I have been making all along in regard to say the cells at fertilization and say a real human child, they are different. .. significantly different. Second point, this distinction between whole and part human doesn't help Pros case. Take for example a blastocyst, yes you can argue it is a "whole" but you can also argue its a part, as its part of the woman. And according to Pros argument partly human doesn't get the right to life, only full human beings do. You can also say that the sperm is a part, but by its self the sperm is a "whole". (Remeber according to Pro the fact that something has human dna means its a "human being") and thus the sperm by its self is a full human being. Pro just arbitrarily asserts what is a full human being and what isn't, but this is the same problem that Pros protests against where he says. .. "Any point we can ascribe to a human other than fertilization is arbitrary and therefore unreliable for determining when a human should suddenly be protected"Trouble is if Pro is free to arbitrarily assert what is a full human being and what isn't, so am I, and so are you, and so is the next person. One person like Pro arbitrarily asserts the fetus is a full human being, but a human sperm isn't. Another person arbitrarily asserts a child is a full human being but a fetus isn't and the next person asserts that an adult is a full human being but a child isn't etc. Point here being, Pro merely arbitrarily asserts out of the things that contain human dna which is a full human being and thus arbitrarily determines what has a right to life and what does not, and by Pro own standards this kind of reasoning should be rejected. In conclusionI don't think Pro was able to refute my main objections to their argument which were. .. .1) The false equivalence of child and non child created by Pro by using deceptive terms like "pre born child" & using the potentiality of something in order to turn it into something it is not.2) The absurdity that results when "human beings" (As defined by Pro as anything which has human DNA), and human beings have a right to life results in the conclusion that human sperm and cells on your nose have a right to life.3) The arbitrary assertions by Pro as to what is a "full human being" & what isn't to get out the previous mentioned absurdity. I submit that I have shown that Pros argument is not a good one and does not justify the claim that "abortion is generally immoral". As such I ask that the vote go to the Con. I thank Pro for the debate. Sources[1] . http://wiki.ironchariots.org...;