Abortion is morally indefensible.

Before I really begin, I'd like to establish a very important disagreement:"In order for my opponent to win this debate, he must prove that the preborn human is not a living human. For if the preborn is not a living human, then no justification for abortion is necessary. However if the preborn is a living human, then no justification for abortion is sufficient. "I want to be very clear that I in no way agree to these terms. By the agreement of this debate, the onus is on me to demonstrate that there do exist moral justifications for abortion, and my opponent must demonstrate that there do not. These are the terms established in the rules of this debate. I am in no way required to demonstrate that there is "no justification necessary" for abortion, as justification is necessary for all actions, especially ones which are morally complex. Refutation:Pro's main contention seems to be that fetuses are recognisably human from conception, and that therefore it is automatically amoral to terminate a pregnancy at any stage. The "humanity" of a zygote or blastocyst is far more debatable than Pro would have you believe, though its humanity or lack thereof is not necessary to provide moral justification for its termination. For instance:". .. preborn humans exhibit other signs of life such as (but not limited to) respiration, cell division, and response to stimuli. " This is a very misleading statement without a bit more refinement. The heart of a "preborn human" does not exist on a functional level until more than a month after conception, and there is no brain activity until almost 2 months. [1] To be clear, until this point the only "signs of life" a fetus exhibits are the same signs of life present in a lump of feces. Cellular respiration, division, and response to stimuli occur on levels which do not warrant moral notice to humans under any other conditions. Further, the "preborn human" does not even become implanted into the uterine wall until about the sixth day, and in most cases will not implant into the uterine wall at all. [2] At these early stages, accidental termination is a very real possibility - albeit without moral repercussions. Before I continue with refutation I'd like to establish a first point which will be arising within the refutation:C1: Humans establish their moral right to live on a scale of viability. There exist many scenarios in which a person may slacken their grip on life to the point which they cannot survive on their own. If a person is in a vegetative state, and continues living only with the aid of external apparatus. If a person has been shot on a battlefield, and only immediate medical attention can save them. If a person is in any kind of imminent danger, which they cannot escape on their own. In these situations, there is no moral onus on the other party to ensure the endangered party's survival - especially if there is some risk to their own will or well being. There may certainly be a moral reward for such self sacrifice, but that reward is only on the merit of it not being required. One may extrapolate from these scenarios a rule, by which a human's moral requirement to protect the life of another human may be calculated by contrasting the viability of the endangered human's bid on life with the aiding human's danger to self. If the aiding human stands to lose their life, or risk their ability to continue their life as they have determined in so far, and the endangered human stands little chance of surviving, then there may be no moral penalty should the aiding human decide to abandon their stake in the endangered human's predicament. If Pro's condition is that it is morally indefensible to allow a human or potential human to die, then we are all guilty every time someone we know dies, by nature of the fact that we failed to save them. I do not claim that zygotes are not potential humans, but I do claim that those who have already struggled into the world have more of a claim on life than a pile of cells with a squidge of DNA - which may blink out of existence via any number of causes (exponentially more so than a living human). C2: Foetal uncertainty/ action or inaction From the time of conception, pregnancies are fraught with uncertainty. Many factors may result in the loss of a pregnancy, or the development of an atypical pregnancy. At times a blastocyst may implant itself away from its ideal home - sometimes as afield as a mucus membrane in vaginal wall or anus, but far more commonly in the fallopian tubes. [3] Ectopic pregnancies such as these endanger both the mother and the "pre-human. " Additionally, the "pre-human" stands great risk for malformations and defects under these conditions. When the "pre-human" faces such risks and also risks the life and well being of the mother, shouldn't we value the life of the human over that of the pre-human - especially if the pre-human has no conscious thought and can't experience pain or any kind of awareness? Many other scenarios come to mind when faced with the supposed certainty of a zygote's future. Twins, for instance. Beginning in 1903 Hans Spemann established (with the help of his infant daughter's hair) that any embryo may be formed into twins. [4] Two complete humans, each with a normal body and mind, have the potential to be born from each zygote, simply by applying slight pressure. If each embryo has the potential to become two humans, have we committed murder each time we birth only one child? The potential is there - so what is the difference? I anticipate that my opponent will argue that human intervention is the difference - that there is no requirement to ensure the creation of two children from each zygote, as each zygote would not "naturally" develop into two children if unaided. What is "natural," though? Is modern prenatal care natural? Surgically aided birthing? We have at this time reduced infant mortality to 0.65% - the lowest rate in history. [5] Is that "natural? " Clearly, natural is not the issue - as long as unnatural spurs us onward in unbridled proliferation. What responsibility do we then have to intervene in a pre-human's development? Before we knew better - mothers smoked and drank alcohol during pregnancy, as well as engaging in other kinds of behavior that endangered their "pre-human. " Were they committing manslaughter? To sum up C2 - the conditions under which mothers might be required to act or required not to act are deeply fraught and obscure. The viability of any given zygote is quite low. My opponent coined the term "pre-human" to personify the lump of cells that develops after fertilization, but only about 26% of those zygotes successfully implant, and an additional 31% of successfully implanted zygotes are miscarried. [6] That means that about 82% of "pre-humans" will never be humans. I argue then that you cannot murder something that stands less than a 1 in 5 chance of ever having a heartbeat. C3: Who's morality? Perhaps the biggest issue (to me) in this debate will be to determine what morality governs these scenarios. If morality is subjective (and my opponent has claimed in the past that it is), then who's to say what conditions apply - and why should someone Else's morality apply to a woman who wants to abort an unwanted pregnancy? In order to win, it seems as though my opponent must demonstrate that one conception of morality is superior to all others, and that it entirely and unflinchingly rules out abortion as a possibility. If he cannot, then he must accept that the subjectivity of morality provides its own justifications for abortion, and the resolution is moot. My citations are in a comment, due to lack of space.