Abortion is Generally Immoral.

I will respond to his arguments from last round and then say a few words in closing. Premise 1:The point of my argument was not that a hunter would hestitate to fire upon a zygote, just that the hunter would make sure he wasn't going to kill a human. In the same way, even if we couldn't tell that a zygote was a living human, the benefit of the doubt should go to life. I have already shown that Con is equivocating when comparing a preborn human to a part of a human. They are not the same. A preborn human is a full human entity, whereas a hair follicle or sperm are not. Also, I have shown why a member of an alien species would deserve the same protection as humans. A Vulcan may not be a human, but they are a species like humanity (a sentient species), so they deserve the same protection. Not being human is irrelevant. However, I have also shown why humans deserve protection and why from fertilization preborn humans are living, human organisms and as such, they deserve the same protection as all humans. Con has not refuted my argument so I extend it. I have not misrepresented the experts. Re-read the quote I gave. If I have in some way misrepresented them, then by all means please explain how. I don't believe it's a misrepresentation to say that fertilization produces a new genetically distinct human organism, especially when that's exactly what the embryologist said. Additionally, regarding the brain dead person, they are, in essence, dead. Only the body is left alive but who they were is gone and will never come back. They are dead, except for their body. The only reason to keep the body alive at that point is because the family can't let go. Zygotes are different because they are humans on the normal path of development, with an inherent capacity for sentience (they just haven't fully developed it yet). Consent does come in to it. In the vast majority of cases, the child is conceived through a consensual act. Additionally, no, I would not allow someone to kill a toddler who was a product of rape, nor do I think most other people, pro-choice or pro-life, would. Your argument actually proves my point. If we wouldn't allow someone to kill a toddler who was a product of rape, why should they be able to kill an unborn child who is the product of rape? Why make the unborn child pay with her life for her father's crimes? I have consistently shown that Con is equivocating by comparing a living human to a part of a human, e. g. sperm or hair follicles. They are parts of humans while a zygote/embryo/fetus is a full human being, developing itself from within. There is no contradiction in saying a zygote should be protected yet it should be legal to get haircuts. Yes, a zygote is a full human being, regardless of the fact it may twin. If it twins, then you'll have two living humans present, but at the moment you only have one living human. This is something a zygote could do that no other living human in any other stage of development can do, but that doesn't make it "non-human. " Newborns can't talk. Does this mean they are not human because more developed humans can? Premise 2Happiness isn't valuable because we like it, though it is a pleasurable state of being. Trials and tribulations are valuable yet almost no one likes going through them. They build character. We do value humans because of their species. Some people don't think twice about killing spiders (myself included). However, spiders are essential to our eco-system. We are not allowed to murder people we don't like. We are not allowed to murder homeless people. We do not place value on humans simply because we like them, otherwise we would be morally justified in killing anyone we don't like. Murder doesn't make everyone unhappy. Murder may bring satisfaction to a gang member or someone whose loved one was killed. Killing someone is wrong because it frustrates their desires to continue living. A brain-dead person is essentially dead already. A human zygote is a human on its normal path of development with a future, unlike the unfortunate braid-dead human. The issue at hand is not whether someone is a person. As I have shown already, the term "person" has been used to discriminate against humans in the past. A member of another intelligent species would deserve the same protection because they are a species like humanity, a sentient species. It would be just as wrong to abort a preborn Vulcan as it would be to abort a preborn human. I never stated that I am reconsidering my stance on aborting zygotes. My point was that no surgical abortions are done on zygotes so it seems irrelevant to argue regarding them. They are still as human as the rest of us because there is no fundamental difference between a zygote and a toddler. They just look different. But they look exactly like a human should in that stage in its development. I don't oppose coitus interruptus (other than the simple fact that it's a lousy form of birth control). As I have stated numerous times, sperm are parts of humans; they are not human beings deserving of protection. It's not until the sperm merges with the egg that a new, unique human being is formed. Additionally, his analogy falls flat because if a man pulls out and emits his sperm somewhere other than inside his partner, those sperm are not on the natural path to merging. They are killed by going somewhere that is not conducive to their survival. Premise 3Innocence, again, is important in being established. We protect people because they are human, a member of our species. Killing an innocent member of that species is wrong. Some people think that killing convicted murderers is wrong, and that wars are wrong. It's just as important to establish that preborn humans have not committed any crime deserving of being killed for it, so they should be protected, as well. I have not applied this rule to anything unrelated. Since abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, then morally it is no better than murder. Con has created another strawman argument against me. I never claimed zygotes were sentient; I said they have the inherent capacity for sentience they just haven't developed it yet. Newborns are not sentient either so if we can justify killing a zygote for not being sentient, then we can justify infanticide for the same reason (and some pro-choice philosophers like Singer and Tooley do just that). I misspoke when I said we shouldn't be able to make life-or-death decisions for those lesser than us. I was saying that humans believe they should be able to kill those lesser than themselves (such as the preborn). There is no reason to justify killing a preborn human that couldn't also be extended to justify killing an infant. ConclusionMy case is not, specifically, that we should protect the unborn solely on the grounds they are human, but that the unborn are human, the same species as we are, so they deserve the same protection that we do. They have not committed any crime worthy of being put to death. Con has not shown compelling reason to reject the preborn as anything other than human, and has not shown why it should be acceptable to put those beings to death. Thank you again for reading and I hope you found this debate informative. I thank Con for his thought-provoking responses to my arguments.