Abortion is morally indefensible.

I will simply refute the remainders of Con's arguments. I have not misunderstood his position. I have simply shown that it does not morally justify abortion. Con did, indeed, claim to agree with me. I will quote him: ". .. it is wrong to kill an innocent human being. I do not disagree. " If you don't disagree with this statement, you agree with it. This idea does not miss the point, especially since Con did not offer any compelling reasons that it is morally justified to kill an innocent human being in the womb rather than outside. I have already defeated Con's statement that you cannot punish something that cannot know it is being punished, and that humanity is not necessary to provide moral justification for abortion. If the child in the womb is an innocent human being, and it is wrong to kill an innocent human being (as Con does not disagree), then the humanity of the unborn is necessary to provide moral justification for its termination. Con's statement that fertilized blastocysts that are miscarried will never be humans is simply incorrect (as I have shown in my original argument -- we are humans from fertilization). Additionally, he has not shown why someone who is in the world (in other words, born) has a high claim on life than a human zygote or blastocyst in the earliest stages of human development. Con has never, up to this point in the debate, actually made a claim that we should not consider a preborn human to be anything other than human (despite the fact that biology clearly shows we are). He has not indicated that cognizance, self-aware and feelings are necessary. These are new arguments. The only qualification he gave was that killing born people is wrong because they suffer, but I have already shown why killing a human is wrong. Not all dying people suffer, and the preborn can feel pain past 20 weeks in the womb. What really matters is that abortion kills an innocent human being. I will briefly tackle Con's new arguments. It seems to me that Con's arguments, cognizance, self-awareness and feelings, can be summed up in sentience. Preborn humans, while not exhibiting signs of sentience under some peoples' definitions, are members of a sentient species. In fact, toddlers who are out of the womb are less developed than adults. They have a very limited cognizance of their surroundings. They are constantly learning, and that learning doesn't stop. These qualifications actually don't exclude sleeping people, and it wasn't a strawman argument. While we are asleep, we are not aware of our surroundings (in fact, when we sleep we often think we are somewhere else). People who die in their sleep don't suffer. They have no feelings, and they are not cognizant of the world around them. If Con's qualifications were correct, they could also be used to justify killing someone in their sleep, or in a coma in which they have a good chance of recovering from. Con claims that the qualifications for life are present in dog feces, but then goes on to talk about the organisms dwelling on those feces. So clearly the qualifications for life actually aren't present in the feces. Con's argument here fails. The bacteria that dwells on the feces is not inherently valuable, as humans are. Humans are much more complex and simply by virtue of being human should their right to life be respected and protected. The argument over the humanity of a zygote is not semantic. They have human DNA, and everything reproduces after its own kind. Dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. At no point in a human's development do they go from being non-human to being human, and Con has not shown that they do. Actually, Con seems to not be up on Pro-Choice ideology. In fact, sophisticated Pro-Choicers, such as Peter Singer and Judith Jarvis Thompson (who came up with the famous analogy of the violinist), admit the full humanity of the preborn (see my first round argument for Peter Singer's words). They have more sophisticated arguments for abortion that don't argue against the humanity of the preborn, which is obvious. In fact, Peter Singer takes the Pro-Choice position to its natural conclusion and supports infanticide. Con has not satisfied his burden of proof, that abortion is morally justified. He has not given sufficient reason to kill a living human in the womb that can't also be applied to a living human outside the womb. If he cannot bring himself to support murder of certain individuals, he has given no reason to kill people with similar circumstances inside the womb. As a matter of fact, it was I who first gave the conditions of victory. Con, in his first round, vaguely indicated that arguments about morality would play a part, but it wasn't until round two that he decided to define what my conditions for victory would be. I have satisfied my burden of proof in showing that it is not morally justified in killing a living, preborn human by the standards set by Con. The verses from the Hebrew Bible that Con quotes are irrelevant. The problem is that children were a huge deal to the Israelites, so for a woman to become barren (which was the real punishment) was to make her basically an outcast. And if preborn children do go to Heaven (as there is good Biblical reason to accept this), then to have the woman miscarry would not be a punishment for the child miscarried. It was not an abortion-accepting morality. God is the giver of life, and only He has the right to take it. Con's contention that I must demonstrate that one conception of morality is superior to another was added post hoc to my statement that for Con to win, he must show that it is morally acceptable to kill an innocent human being. Con has not successfully refuted my position, that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings. That was my argument from the start because Con did not make his argument clear from the beginning. He has not given any reasons to support killing a preborn human that could not also be used to kill a human outside of the womb. Con has not satisfied his burden of proof, and I have satisfied mine in spades.