Abortion in the embryonic period is not necessarily immoral

I thank Con for their reply1) If something contains human DNA then it is human2) Abortion in the embryonic period destroys something that is human3) It is not necessarily immoral to destroy something that is human C) Therefore abortion in the embryonic period is not necessarily immoral1) If something contains human DNA then it is humanI am sick of Con trying to change what I mean when I say something is "human". For example Con says..."Blood is a part of humans, but blood is not a human being. Blood contains human DNA, but it is only human in the same sense that my arm is human. My arm may be human, but I am a full human being."As if I ever said or implied that something is human because its "part" of a human. Con repeats this kind of tactic many times. Dis-regard this non-sense.Con then says..."Regarding the embryologists, no, of course they would not say human blood wasn't human. But this is irrelevant." My entire criteria for what counts as something to be called "human" is the DNA identifier. You have buggered me around for all this time yet you acknowledge that an embryologist would identify human blood as human based on DNA then say..........oh its irrelevant. 2) Abortion in the embryonic period destroys something that is humanCon says..."Yes, abortion destroys something that is "human,"Damm right it does, and if you had just admitted that at the start we wouldn't of had to spend something like a third of this debate on, well what do you mean when you say something is "human" ?3) It is not necessarily immoral to destroy something that is human "I have already justified how an embryo is a human being, and Pro even said he can admit that."Only in the sense that human being in your view equates to homo sapien.Con says..."Pro says that he can grant that abortion destroys a human organism and therefore kills something classified as Homo sapiens, but that's exactly my argument. It is wrong to kill an innocent member of humanity. Simply saying they are "human" as a body part is human is equivocation."Everyone knows what I mean by "human". Con never explained how being classfied as "homo sapien" gets something an inherent right to life, he just asserts it. Member of humanity in Cons view just means member of the species homo sapien.Innocence doesn't apply here within the context of dealing with free moral agents making decisions, as no decisions are being made by a zygote or embryos.Con says..."Why is it wrong to killer a toddler because it's human, but not to kill an embryo because it's human?"I never argued that its wrong kill something because its "human". Con says..."Pro asserts that if we grant the right to life for children, it doesn't follow that an embryo gets the same right. He has not, however, shown why"Its a non sequitur.....1) To kill a child is immoralC) Therefore to kill an embryo is immoralAlso Moral equivalence is not granted here, if Con wants to argue that to kill a toddler is morally the same as killing an embryo then he would of had to prove that, he doesn't get the premise that to kill a toddler is morally equivalent to killing an embryo by default.Also I think we have a defeater against this whole "there is no majior difference, therefore they are morally equivalent" claim.Take for example Sam kills Ben, An immoral act ? I will grant that if you want.Now take that exact example except the ONLY DIFFERENCE is that Ben broke into Sams house. Remember everything is the same, same world, same neighbor, same weather, what religion these people believed in, whether they donated to charity, there is absolute no difference what so ever in the two scenarios except that Ben broke into Sams house.Yet everyone, including Con recognizes even one change in the variables means that the two situations may not be morally equivalent.So Con wants to claim that there is no majior difference between killing a child and say an zygote or embyro ?. A child is a thinking, feeling, self aware, with a desire to live and isn't dependent on one sole person to be forced against their will to carry them inside their body.None of these things apply to an zygote or embryo.As such cause there is a "major difference", the assumption of moral equivalence is defeated on the basis that different situations are not necessarily morally the same.Con says..."However, why should the child pay with his life for the crimes of his father? "Misleading, Con could of said embryo, but says child to take advantage that the word "child" can refer to different things. Its not about punishment for the embryo, its if a prenant woman should be forced against her will to carry or if she can choose not too.Con says about his analogies..."They clearly show why one must take responsibility for a child conceived through sex, "I don't think he justifed how consent to sex means you forfeit bodily rights. Take for example I walk through a bad neighbor hood, now I know its a bad neighbor hood, and I am open to the charge of acting unwisely, but does this mean I have lost my bodily right not to be mugged & raped cause I consented to walking there ? No.Con wants me to respond to their analogies, for starters there is quite a few, I can't address them all, so I'll take the baseball one.IF this is an apt analogy this means every women who did not mean to get pregnant should not only be given the choice of abortion, but should get an abortion. In both cases the person takes responsibility for restoring things as they were before, in the case of the window breaker, to get that window fixed, in case of pregnancy to get unpregnant.So yes Con, I agree in both cases people should accept responsibility, the woman should accept its her responsibility to get an abortion, and of course everyone should help or at least not go out of their way when these people pursue these responsibilities.Of course Con does not really mean take "responsibility" in this sense, what Con really means is punishment. The woman needs to take responsibility (accept her punishment), and what is her punishment ? to be forced against her will to continue pregnancy. As such it is not necessarily immoral too destroy something that is human.C) Therefore abortion in the embryonic period is not necessarily immoralSecond argument in defense of abortion, Bodily rightsCon says..."Pro's final argument is irrelevant. My arguments opposing abortion have nothing to do with the other sufferings in the world, sad as they are."Oh, but your argument is about morality and rights so it is quite relevant as a refutation of your argument and advances mine. The point here is not about charging Con with some wrong doing, in fact its quite the opposite, its that Con is not being charged with immorality, even though their decisions will make the difference as to whether children, will live or die, never the less Cons bodily rights, just the mere rights to not be forced to hand over wealth/possessions justifies him.Now some one may say the the two situations are not morally equal, I would reply, you are exactly right. You see the pregnant woman at least has the excuse in the the embryonic period to say her decision won't change whether a child lives or die (I mean real child not an embyro here) even more so, its her body that's on the line. Con can't even have that as an excuse, as they could give up all there wealth and possessions and not put there body on the line at all, unlike a pregnant women.If Con is not charged with immorality having lesser excuses, then how less so the pregnant women ?. As such abortion in the embyronic period is not necessarily immoral.Vote ProI thank Con for the debate.