Abortion is generally morally wrong.

Thank you, johnnyis, for your very well-written response.My opponent's argumentTo remind the audience, this is the argument that my opponent shall be trying to defend and I shall be trying to refute over the course of the debate:1. It is generally morally wrong to kill a newborn [human] baby.2. There is no significant moral difference between a newborn human baby and a human zygote.3. Abortion results in the killing of a human zygote.4. Therefore, abortion is generally morally wrong.Once I add the missing "[human]" in premise one (which I shall since I'm such a nice guy), the argument becomes logically valid; that is to say if the premises are true, then the conclusion would necessarily have to be true as well. It's validity as an argument is not in question; it's soundness is. An argument is only sound when it meets two conditions:1. Its conclusion logically follows from its premises (valid).and2. Its premises are all true.My opponent's argument, however, is not sound, because one of its premises is untrue.The Untrue PremiseWell, which premise isn't true, huh, smart guy? Surely it's not the first one. No, I would agree that it is generally morally wrong to kill a newborn human baby. Wouldn't this have been a more interesting debate if I disagreed with this one, though?The third premise is also unobjectionable; it simply defines what abortion is.It's the second premise that I have a problem with. To say that there is no morally significant difference between a zygote and a newborn baby raises the question "what exactly are your morals for?"The Moral Significance; Why is Murder Wrong?My opponent says it's prima facie wrong to kill an infant, which it is; the concept of murdering a fellow human being is undoubtedly deeply engraved into our very natures as being morally apprehensible. But I fear many people (my opponent included) do not take the time to bother asking "why". And when they do, they usually come up with something like "Well, it's just obvious. I mean, I wouldn't want to be murdered."But this question deserves much more than a nonchalant answer or a mere dismissal on the grounds that it's just "prima facie". Ask yourself seriously: why is it wrong to kill another human being? Is it also wrong to kill a sea urchin?If not, why not? The way I see it, there are only a few differences between a plankton and a human being: size, environment, and dependency. But none of these are morally significant differences, as you've said, johnnyis. Maybe I've neglected the most important difference of all: species. Maybe you think it's wrong to kill a human being just because it's a human being.If that's the case, Pro, then is it wrong to hurt a puppy? I'm sure your frontal cortex just lit up, saying "Of course it is", but do you even know why? This is the poor result of prioritizing intuition over logic, of being satisfied saying it's prima facie wrong to kill another human being instead of asking yourself why is it wrong to kill another human being?Alright, enough banter; it's time I said what needs to be said already. The most significant moral difference (perhaps the only difference even worth noting) between a zygote and a newborn baby, and between a puppy and a plankton, is sentience.Why is sentience morally significant?Is life an important attribute to take into account when discerning moral values? For instance, is it morally wrong to punch an inanimate object, such as an empty bucket? What about a bucket of water? A bucket half full of water? (Or is it half empty...?) Obviously, it doesn't how much water this bucket has; it's not alive. So punch away, Rocky, you're not doing anything morally wrong.Clearly, if something isn't alive, there's no need to bother acting politely to it. You can tip your hat to as many rocks as you like, but none of them will so much as curtsy back. However, to say life is a deciding factor in moral values and obligations is to only understanding the issue halfway.At the risk of sounding temporarily barbaric, I would argue that it is morally acceptable to punch a housefly square in its tiny face, even though its alive. Why? Because it's not human, right, johnnysis? No. To say being human is a deciding factor in moral values and obligations is to be inequitably and unjustifiably selective. In all actuality, being human has very little, if anything at all, to do with it.The reason is because, essentially, punching a housefly is no different than punching a bucket. They both lack sentience, the cognitive functioning necessary to feel pain, pleasure, and everything in between. A housefly reflexively reacts to stimuli in its environment, but it is incapable of knowing pain, or even of being aware of its own existence."Animated Matter"A life, such one like a housefly's, is what I will henceforth refer to as "animated matter". It is a species of animal, so is therefore categorized as "alive", but its existence is more known to us than it is to itself (and other houseflies). It never knows it's alive; it never knows pain; it never knows anything. For the sake of making the answering of moral questions simpler, a housefly might as well not be considered alive, though it biologically is of course.So punch away. It may seem, at the very least, odd for one to do so without prior instigation, but punching a housefly is not morally wrong. The principles of morality are not a guiding doctrine to keep things existing just because they exist (like a zygote), or just because they're alive, or just because they're human. Or any combination of the three. They are a guiding doctrine for us to avoid pain and promote happiness in the overall well-being of sentient creatures.That's why it's wrong to murder something: you cause it pain, physically and/or mentally, going against its want to live. That's why sentience is important; without the ability to feel pain, or be aware of your own existence, you're just animated matter. And that's why my opponent's second premise is untrue.A zygote is much smaller than even one foot on a housefly. It's smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. It lacks sentience and has never, at any point in its existence, been aware of its existence. It does not want to live, nor does it even have the capacity to want to live. Therefore, there are no morally negative consequences to terminating a zygote, aside from those that might arise as a byproduct of misplaces values.A zygote is merely animated matter, so punch away.