Abortion in the embryonic period is not necessarily immoral

I will simply respond to the remaining arguments from Pro. Premise 1I have tried several times to understand what Pro is getting at when he claims that blood, skin cells, etc. is human. He claims that we shouldn't kill embryos because they're human like blood is human, but then says that embryos are technically human beings. So they're not human in the same way that blood is human. Pro has been arguing in circles. It is immoral to kill embryos because they are very young humans, innocent members of species Homo sapiens, with the inherent capacity to perform all the things that make humans valuable (they just haven't developed them yet). Blood having DNA is irrelevant when it comes to the morality of killing a human being, even an embryo, which is a whole human being directing its own development from within. Pro has consistently confused parts with wholes. A skin cell dying is not a tragedy because an organism hasn't been killed, it has only lost a part of its body that it no longer needs. Seeing blood on the ground is a tragedy, but not simply because there's blood on the ground. Because we know that the human who lost that blood is either either severely injured or dead. Premise 2Abortion destroys something that is human, sure, but it destroys a whole human entity. This is why abortion is immoral. Saying that an embryo is human in the same way a skin cell is human is equivocation. Skin cells are human because they're part of the human body. An embryo is human because it is a member of humanity, a human being. To say an embryo is no different from a skin because both are "human" is to use the term "human" in a misleading fashion. Premise 3Innocence does matter, because they have committed no wrong, certainly none that justifies taking their life. They may not have developed the capacity for free will yet, but they have the inherent capacity for it and will develop it as any other human does, when they develop enough (which even goes far beyond the infant stage, so if the capacity for free will is necessary for a right to life, then infants do not have a right to life and you must support infanticide if you support abortion). Pro has argued that it's okay to kill embryos because they are human and it's not necessarily immoral to kill something that is human. Yet he never explained why it's not okay to kill toddlers, even though they are human. Since Pro never made this distinction (which I asked him to do in the previous round), Pro cannot justify killing an embryo even though it is "human. "Embryos having a right to life is not a non sequitur.1) Embryos are innocent biological members of humanity2) Children are innocent biological members of humanity3) It is prima facie wrong to kill an innocent member of humanity4) Therefore it is wrong to kill embryos and childrenI don't see how Pro can say that Sam killing Ben is not an immoral act. If he believes that it's never wrong to take an innocent life, then nothing will convince him. All I can say is I hope, for his friends' sake, that no one ever tries to kill or rape them. I'd hate to be one of his friends if that were the case. The difference between the two scenarios is that Ben broke into Sam's house, an act of violence and Sam was defending himself. Pregnancy is different. The embryo is not violently attacking the mother. In fact, in the vast majority of cases the embryo has been conceived through a consensual act. In Pro's scenario, it's more like Sam invited Ben into his house, then claimed that he broke in and killed him. While children may be thinking, felling, self-aware, with a desire to live, this is not true of infants. So again, Pro must either oppose abortion or support infanticide. However, even the embryo is part of a sentient species and has the inherent capacity to perform these functions. They just haven't developed them yet. Pro's argument could also be used to support killing a sleeping person or a person in a reversible coma, which most people would believe are immoral acts. Additionally, I already responded to Pro's objection about being dependent on only one person, in the analogy of the swimming pool. Pro has chosen not to respond as it clearly shows that being dependent on one person does not make one non-valuable. Pro would still have a moral obligation to help that child, despite being the only person in the entire world it is depending on for its survival, even if it doesn't know it. As such, I extend my argument. Argument 2There is precedent for using the word "child. " A pregnant woman is said to be "with child. " I did not mean to use an emotional term, just to show that the human entity within the woman's womb is the rapist's child and a child should not be punished for the crimes of her father. Pro has side-stepped my argument. A child conceived in rape is still a human being. If Pro would not support killing a two-year-old child conceived in rape, then he can't support killing an embryo conceived in rape for the same reason. In Pro's example, you may not have "consented" to being mugged and raped, but you must be open to the possibility of it. You would be foolish to walk through a bad neighborhood and expect nothing bad to happen, just like someone would be foolish to have unprotected sex and not expect to become pregnant. But this is still a different scenario because in abortion, we're talking about killing an innocent human being. There are two lives at stake, not just the mother's. Pro never responded to the baby machine analogy, so again I extend my arguments. If you push a button for a pleasurable experience but a baby pops out, you are responsible to care for that baby. If you have sex for the pleasurable experience but conceive a child (or human embryo, if you prefer), you are responsible for caring for that young human. An abortion does not make a woman "un-pregnant. " Her body has still gone through changes to prepare itself for pregnancy. At any rate, an act of violence is not taking responsibility for an action. Pro's response to the baseball analogy only works if I knocked down my neighbor's wall that the window is in so that he wouldn't notice the broken window. That's not taking responsibility, and it's not moral for me to do so. Claiming that I'm trying to punish the mother is an ad hominem attack, and the arguments should be ignored. My argument is about morality and rights, but Pro has gone off on a red herring talking about the suffering of other people. If you want to talk about what needs to be done to feed starving children, that's another discussion entirely. The fact of other suffering people does not negate my arguments opposing abortion. Pro is merely asserting that an embryo is not a child (and I have shown why it is). He gave no actual reasons not to consider an embryo a human child. Zygote, embryo, fetus, are merely stages of development like infant, toddler, adolescent. While an embryo may not have the present ability to perform these functions that Pro believes makes humans valuable, then do have the inherent capacity to fulfill these functions once they develop enough. And by Pro's definition, infants are not children. I have shown why abortion in the embryonic period is immoral. You are killing an innocent human being with the inherent capacity to fulfill all the functions that make humans valuable.