Abortion is immoral.

As my opponent could not extend my arguments, I will take this opportunity to summarize the arguments and wrap up any loose ends. ===CON's Case=== 1. Rights Recall that Con starts off by making a case about the rights of the women overruling the rights of the fetus. However, RIGHTS are not relevant to MORALS. A lawful course of action does not necessarily insinuate that said course of action is morally reasonable. Ergo, this case is invalid, and should not have any weight on this debate. 2. Sentience Con opens with "plants are living yet we kill those all the time... it seems that a particular level of conscious determines whether or not one indeed has the right to life". However, my opponent overlooks the fact that we can gain and lose sentience throughout our life. Examples of this would be sleeping, fainting, falling into a coma, etc. That being said, I proposed that the "POTENTIAL for sentience" should define whether the organism is considered a person. However, INSTEAD of coming up with a proper defense for her assertion, Con chooses to dismiss the entire argument by saying "humans are in fact conscious during sleep". (Notice that she attempts to ignore the "coma" argument, and avoids going in depth altogether as well.) Pertaining to this, one must note that, while humans ARE conscious during sleep, sleeping results in a state of MINIMAL consciousness. [1] This level of consciousness, known as primary consciousness, is at par (or below, even) with the consciousness of animals. At this point, I would like to question if Con believes that during the duration of a nap, we lose our rights as a human being. Con's assertion does not encompass these points. Furthermore, even if Con chooses to argue that humans retain their rights as a person because of PREVIOUS consciousness, or anything along those lines, the VERY FACT that one can acquire sentience, lose it (Or partially, at least), and regain it again while still being considered human all the while PROVES that there is some form of personal unity beneath all of this, and that sentience is NOT a defining factor of what makes us human. Instead of acknowledging these points and refuting them properly, my opponent seeks to challenge my definition instead. She says that "... a male ejaculates sperm when he orgasms... sperm has the *potential* for sentience, so is it immoral for a male to masturbate [?]". However, this would imply that Con believes that any puddle of sperm, without any external interference, has the same potential for sentience as any other fetus. Now, we all know that sperm, WITH an EGG (the EMBRYO) has the potential for sentience, so it is NOT immoral to masturbate and Con has NOT managed to properly refute my statement. 3. Risks My opponent's last argument is that "[not all] pregnancies are necessarily 'safe'". Unfortunately, any pregnancy complication is simply a CONSEQUENCE of the woman's actions, as I have shown above. Additionally, most sources would state that abortion has FOUR TIMES the mortality rate of regular pregnancies. [2] Ergo, even if my opponent's point is valid, which it's NOT, it would be illegitimate. 4. Consistency My opponent's last point is that it's "hypocritical to suggest birth control is permissible but abortion is not.", because "many forms of contraception rely on terminating pregnancies such as Plan B". Apparently, my opponent is not aware that contraceptives work by PREVENTING pregnancy. NO contraceptive method will terminate pregnancy. If my opponent would take the time to look through her OWN SOURCES, she might realize that "Plan B" works by DELAYING the egg-sperm contact, and killing off the sperm. [3] What my opponent is mistakenly referring to is actually what is known as an "abortion pill", or "mifepristone", which is NOT a contraceptive. ===PRO's Case=== 1. Intentionally inflicting harm on others for the sake of expediency for oneself is immoral. 2.The fetus is held within the responsibility of the biological parents. 3. In an abortion, the mother is trying to escape responsibility by the inflicting harm on another human life. 4. Abortion is immoral. My opponent challenges point three by saying "If consensual sex caused pregnancy, but the parents knew the baby would be born with catastrophic birth defects, they may opt to have an abortion and not simply want to shrug off responsibility". However, Con must realize that it is ONLY because the biological parents acknowledge that the fetus was THEIR responsibility, are they opting for abortion. ===Conclusion=== My opponent ends with "Since the fetus is not conscious enough to understand or appreciate their existence, they are not losing anything by ceasing to exist". However, my opponent is confusing concepts of HARM and PAIN. PAIN is the outcome of HARM. Simply put, just because the fetus does NOT feel any PAIN, doesn't mean that HARM isn't done to them. Moreover, using my opponent's logic, once could also claim that "Since the >Slumbering< are not conscious enough to understand and appreciate their existence, they are not losing anything by ceasing to exists", thus CONDONING the murder of the asleep. One can easily see the outright absurdity of such a statement. I would like to conclude by saying that even though I obviously cannot match my opponents eloquent oratory style, I have done my best to make solid points in the midst of such an unbalanced debate. I thank my opponent for the opportunity to gain further insight on the structuring of debates. Thank you. ===Sources=== 1.http://www.neurologyreviews.com...... 2.http://www.pregnantpause.org...... 3. http://www.planbonestep.com...