Abortion is Generally Immoral

Unfortunately it seems Con hasn't been reading my arguments very closely. First, my argument does not rest on any definition of "personhood." In fact, the word "person" does not even appear in my opening argument. This is because I have made the argument (supported by reason and evidence) that basic human rights (such as the right to life) should be established as soon as the human comes into existence. We are the same entities from fertilization to natural death, and so an equally morally justifiable reason is needed to kill that entity at all stages of his/her life.Second, he has made some baseless assertions about my argument that simply aren't true.Premise 1Con keeps asserting that embryos/fetuses are only potential, but doesn't mention what they are actually. A potential X is an actual Y. If the unborn aren't fully human, then what are they? The reality is that the unborn are potential toddlers, but fully human. Con has not given compelling reason to believe otherwise.I have already shown why viability is not a criterion for establishing full-fledged humanity. Con has not refuted these, so I extend my arguments here. However, additionally Con would have to admit that a human on life support is not fully human, because they can't survive on their own without technology aiding them. It would be morally justified in pulling the plug for any reason, regardless if they had a good chance of recovering or not.Therefore, while Con's argument is valid, it is unsound. The unborn have the potential for adulthood, but they are already fully human.Now, the bulk of Con's remaining argument is no more than an emotional appeal, which is a logical fallacy. The zygote may not appear as adults do, but neither do toddlers. However, a zygote is a human and while not appearing like mature humans do, the zygote does appear as all humans do at their stage in their development. Clearly the appearance of being human is not a criterion for establishing full humanity, otherwise Joseph Merrick, more commonly known as the "elephant man," would not have been fully human.Con has not proven my claim that the zygote is a full human being is ridiculous. His entire argument is, "here, look at this! This isn't human!" but offers no reasoning to support his claim.In fact, there are four main differences between the unborn and born human beings, their size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. [1]Size is not accurate criteria for establish human rights, otherwise toddlers would have less basic human rights than adults, and women would generally have less basic human rights than men (since they are generally smaller). It would not be wrong for a basketball coach to choose Shaquille O'Neal over Gary Coleman to play on his team, but it would be equally wrong to kill them both.Level of development is not good criteria, otherwise toddlers would still have less rights than adults, and the disabled would have less rights than those who are not disabled.Environment is not good critera, because our nature does not change by changing location. I went to Italy three years ago, but my nature as a human being did not change. Neither does the nature of the unborn change by an eight-inch journey down the birth canal.Degree of dependency is not good criteria because that would mean that toddlers deserve less rights than adults, and it would be moral to kill someone in a reversible coma for any reason simply because he is more dependent than those of us who are not.There is no moral difference between a zygote and a fetus, or between a zygote/embryo/fetus and a newborn (which is why some pro-choice philosophers, like Peter Singer, support infanticide).In fact, Abraham Lincoln used similar reasoning in his debate with Stephen Douglas:"You say 'A' is white and 'B' is black. It is color, then the lighter having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are a slave to the first man you meet with a fairer skin than your own.You do not mean color exactly -- You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again: By this rule you are to be a slave to the first man you meet with an intellect superior to your own.But you say it is a question of interest, and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you." [2]It seems that Con wishes to argue with the experts on the issue. But the embryologists consistently agree that human life begins at fertilization. This is full-fledged human life (biologically). No amount of trying to reinterpret the words of embryologists will disprove my position.Con appeals to Evolution but the cases are not parallel at all. Science has proven that human life begins at fertilization, as I have shown.Con says my objection to his analogy does not matter, but he misses the point entirely. My objection does matter because it refutes his case. An egg is not a chicken just like a uterus is not a human. But a chicken embryo (inside the egg) is a chicken, just like a human embryo (inside the uterus) is a human.Additionally, I did not concede that a seed is not a plant. Con simply did not pay close enough attention to my argument. I was saying that a seed is not the same as a mature plant. His analogy fails. The accurate analogy would be seed:plant as embryo:adult. Therefore Con is relying on faulty logic to try and support his case.Con has not shown that a developing human is not fully human. In fact, I have shown that his statement is not true. We don't stop developing at birth. In fact, our brain doesn't even stop developing until we're 25. [3] Therefore, Con would have to support infanticide. He would have to support the right to kill anyone at least until they're 25, when their brain stops developing.I have shown that human life begins at fertilization. Sperm and eggs may technically be "alive," but they are not "human life" in the morally relevant way that humans are, the way that I have argued we all are from fertilization (due to being the same substance in the womb as we are outside the womb).Needless to say, premise one stands.Premise 2Con has actually not rebutted any of my arguments about abortions being immoral in the case of rape, so all of my arguments I extend.He relies on more emotional appeal, but the child that is conceived is biologically the rapist's child. So my point about punishing the offspring of a criminal still stands. Additionally, there is precedent for referring to the unborn as a child. Pregnant women are said to be "with child," and even doctors will refer to the developing embyro/fetus as a child or baby. Plus, the word "fetus" itself means "offspring." [4]Con's entire objection relies on a fallacious appeal to emotion.Premise 3I did not contradict myself here, Con is just not reading my argument very carefully. Taking a pill like RU-486 just results in preventing implantation of a conceived zygote/embryo. You are not actively killing it in the sense of dismembering or poisoning it, as in surgical abortions. But even if you were to induce labor and remove the embryo/fetus from the womb in that manner, you are removing it from the only environment in which it can survive. Therefore you are still an active agent in its death.All three of the premises stand, therefore the conclusion stands.ConclusionMy entire argument stands. Con's entire rebuttal relied on emotional appeals and misinformation.[1] Schwartz, Stephen D., The Moral Question of Abortion, Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1990, pp. 15-19.[2] The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 2, (Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), p. 222.[3] http://www.academic.marist.edu...;[4] http://www.etymonline.com...;