Abortion is Generally Immoral.

Comments on general abortion debateBased on Con's opening statements, I'm not convinced he knows what the pro-life position actually teaches. Some pro-lifers don't want abortion illegal, but are personally pro-life. Some want all abortions banned, some want to keep it legal only in the "hard cases" (e.g. rape and incest). Being pro-life says nothing about what you believe the legality should be. Being pro-life means that you believe that preborn children are inherently valuable and should be protected. I personally believe that abortions should be illegal except in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy. But again, this debate is not on whether it should be legal or not."Pre-born" is perfectly acceptableI am not being deceptive when I use the term "preborn." I actually prefer it over "unborn." The prefix "un" means "not," and so it brings to mind something that is not something and will remain that way. However, the prefix "pre" means "before," so an "unborn" child is really a human who has not been born but will be born (unless miscarriage or abortion occurs). They are on the way to becoming developed enough to be born. There is nothing misleading about the term.Calling pregnancy a "death trap" would be simply wrong. In fact, it's safer to carry a pregnancy to term than it is to drive a car. A woman has a 1 in 6,000 chance of dying in a car accident, and a 13 in 100,000 chance of dying in a pregnancy-related death (and this number could also include those dying from botched abortions). She has a less than 1% chance of dying during her pregnancy. [1] [2]Again, using the term "preborn" is perfectly reasonable.Fertilization equated to human childA child is simply a "young human." There is precedent to calling preborn children a "child." When a woman is pregnant she is said to be "with child."I may have misspoken. I meant that the only fundamental difference between a preborn child and a born one is the path of development. They are both human, and they are both the same human. Every two-year old child was once a three-day old embryo, just as Con and I once were. It makes biological sense to say we were one an embryo. It makes no sense to say we were once a sperm, because it's just not true. Fertilization is when a new, unique living human emerges.The other differences (such as size, its level of development, its environment (or location), and its degree of dependence are arbitrary. The only position that makes sense is the pro-life position, that valuable human life begins at fertilization. Every life begins with fertilization, but people exist of all different sizes, shapes, development, etc. Using any of these as criteria opens the door to discriminate others who are smaller than us, less developed than us, in a different location than we are (say, a third-world country), or less dependent than we are (for example, someone who can drive would be more valuable as a human than one who can't). All of these may hold instrumental value, but every human has intrinsic value. For example, Shaquille O'Neal may be more instrumentally valuable as a basketball player than Gary Coleman, but both Shaq and Coleman have equal intrinsic value as human beings, and it would be equally wrong to kill either one.So yes, morally killing a preborn child is equivalent to killing someone outside the womb. Con seems to be stuck on the "three-day old embryo," but the reality is that the earliest surgical abortions take place at four to six weeks in to the pregnancy. [3] Con mentioned embryos killed for their stem cells, but this is irrelevant to the debate, which is about abortions. By that time they are far more developed than just a few cells and are already pretty far in their development. In fact, the heart has even started beating. [4]Con's analogy of the gun fails pretty swiftly. First, when he has theoretically killed you, it is either not with the metal and wood, or he has beat you with it. A gun would propel a bullet to kill you. He has not killed you with a gun, only with the materials necessary to create a gun. An embryo develops not like a gun or a car, but more like a Polaroid photograph. It isn't "constructed" in the womb, it develops itself from within.Consider this scenario: I am with my friend in the woods and I catch a glimpse of a rare bird, say the Western Ground Parrot. I brought my trust Polaroid along with me, as well as a friend who wanted to come along. I take my camera and take a picture of the bird, just before it flies off. Wanting to sell my picture, I take the Polaroid out and wait for it to develop. It is still just a smudge of grey, but my friend takes it from me and rips it up. Fuming, I yell, "you just destroyed my picture of the Western Ground Parrot! I may never get another chance at catching it." My friend replies, "it wasn't a Western Ground Parrot, just a grey smudge."In reality, I would be justified in being upset that he ripped up my picture because even though it wasn't fully developed, it was still a valuable picture. This is how a preborn human develops. He develops from within, not constructed.PersonhoodI admit, I actually glanced over Con's use of "person" in his syllogism. Being a person is not necessary for my argument, as my argument (which Con still has not successfully refuted) is that simply being a member of humanity makes one intrinsically valuable. 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.I have shown how Con equivocated by referring to parts of a human body as "human." Preborn humans are developing themselves from within. Even though our individuals parts have human DNA, they are parts whereas I am a whole. If you pluck off my hair, I will stick exist. But kill me, and you have killed a human being. Even so, the preborn are developing humans which are full, complete humans.If Con's argument is that a three-day old embryo is not a person because it is only a few cells, then it seems his argument rests on the fact that is not less developed. Our level of development does not determine our value as humans. It is just as wrong to kill a toddler as it is to kill an adult because they are both human. Just as it is equally wrong to kill a preborn human.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.I am confused by Con's statement that my argument backfires because I can't use personhood to give a right to life to a born human child. This seems silly to me as I am not trying to. I am saying that all human life is equally valuable, born children and preborn. They are all deserving of protection.Con also believes that until a preborn child has developed certain things (e.g. the ability to think or feel), it is not valuable. But preborn humans have an inherent capacity to fulfill these functions they have simply not developed them yet. Con is still arguing that less developed humans are less valuable.I am running low on characters, so I will briefly close.I have shown that all humans have an inherent right to life based on the fact that they are human. 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. Con has not sufficiently shown that some humans should not be protected while others should. Please vote Pro.[1] http://adventure.howstuffworks.com...;[2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...;[3] http://www.americanwomensservices.com...;[4] http://www.sfuhl.org...;