Abortion is generally an immoral act

I wish to take a moment and thank the Contender, Peter, for his rebuttal and interest in this topic. He has obviously put a lot of thought into his position and I hope to carefully consider and rebut his arguments. I am glad he is not looking for a war of words; as I haven't debated him yet, I wasn't sure what to expect.Rebuttal:1: I am glad that Peter concedes the unborn are human. It is hard to argue against that scientifically or philosophically. However, his definition of human is somewhat simplistic. Yes, humans have two pairs of 23 chromosomes, totaling 46 chromosomes. But what of someone with Downs syndrome, who actually has 47 chromosomes? By Peter's definition, someone with Downs syndrome is not human because they don't meet the criteria of having two pairs of 23 chromosomes.There is much more to being human than the number of chromosomes. Humans are unique on this planet (and possibly the universe) because we also have the ability to reason, to question our place in the universe, to become better than we are, to create technologies, etc. From the very beginning of our conception, we are developing. This doesn't stop once we leave the womb. A human is not fully developed until sometime in their 20's.Now, regarding the analogy of the hair follicle, Peter is making the biological mistake of confusing parts with wholes. Hair is part of a whole; if you pluck out a hair, it stops growing. However, once a fetus has been born, he continues to grow once separated from the mother by the umbilical cord. While unborn, the human grows and continues growing once outside the womb and separated. This is because they are a separate, unique individual even in utero, as the unborn has his own unique DNA fingerprint. As Scott Klusendorf writes,"The difference in kind between each of our cells and a human embryo is clear: an individual cell's functions are subordinated to the survival of the larger organism of which it is merely a part. The human embryo, however, is already a whole human entity. True, it's an immature human, as is an infant, but it's a whole human organism nonetheless...it makes no sense to say that you were once a sperm or somatic cell. However, the facts of science make clear that you were once a human embryo." [1]The contender observes, "a hair follicle is the same as a zygote except that a zygote can grow. Nothing more." But this is precisely why we see the zygote is alive. Living things grow. A zygote is a living human, whereas a hair follicle is a part of the larger human whole.Regarding size and environment, they are arguments pro-choicers less educated on the topic make.Regarding level of development, it sort of goes hand-in-hand with degree of dependency, but there are some differences.Peter mentioned, "An infant can be cared for by someone else and the mother need not be involved." This is true. But what if the mother decides to breastfeed? The child can then only be cared for by the mother. Also, some women leave the umbilical cord attached for an hour or so after birth to make sure the child receives as much nutrient as she can. If she suddenly had a change of heart (say, for the sake of argument, the reality of the situation finally hit her strongly enough and she wanted the child aborted), should she still have that right because the child is still attached by the cord?A fetus and infant are not incomparable. As I have shown, they are both living humans. A fetus is just a less developed infant.While some adults may be able to fend for themselves if they find themselves homeless and jobless, not everyone can. Most homeless people live off the generosity of others. They are exposed to the elements outside and often go hungry. Their quality of life is drastically reduced by having to live on the streets. It was also easier in the dawn of civilization before people created money. A homeless person can't exactly just start farming crops because he would have to buy them first.2: Peter contends, "A person is what separates a hunk of DNA (a hair follicle) from a walking talking sentient being." In order for me to address this argument, I must ask: what is your definition of sentience?Women, blacks, and Jews were considered property. They were not considered people. Women were owned by their husbands, blacks were owned by slaveowners, and Jews were owned by Germans. People cannot be owned as property. It goes against their basic human rights.I have already illustrated why having a moral qualm against abortion does not pre-suppose a moral qualm against brushing, using a towel, etc. Abortion kills a living human, the other examples are merely a part of the larger whole and are not unique individuals.Honestly, I was hoping not to have to consider rape in this argument because it requires a whole new set of argumentation. However, I seem to have plenty of characters remaining so I would be happy to address the issue.My brief argument against rape abortions is as follows: Rape is a horrible crime. It should never be done to anyone, and I am very much in favor of harsher punishments against rapists. However, the unborn is still a living human and should not be punished for the horrible crime his father committed. I believe we should punish the criminal, not the child conceived in this fashion. It is true she currently has the legal right to choose abortion, however what is legal is not always moral and I believe it is still immoral to abort the unborn in this scenario.What I would like to know is why would killing the child before he is born be merciful? How do you know that the child would rather die than grow up in poverty? She could always go with adoption. Adoption is a very expensive process, so she can be sure the child would be given to a loving family. One of the reasons that adoption is so expensive is because it would also cover most, if not all, of her medical expenses. That would eliminate the possibility of the child growing up in poverty or being abused.But let's take this a step further: Say there's a woman who was raped two years ago. She thought she could handle raising the child conceived in rape, but by now the child has started to develop features that resemble the rapist so that every time she looks at him, she burns with hatred for what that man did to her. Is she now justified in killing the child? Would we be justified in killing the child to put him out of his misery if his mother was abusive?I thank my opponent for a thought-provoking argument, and I look forward to the next round.[1] Klusendorf, Scott. The Case For Life, 1st ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009. 38. Print.