Abortion is generally immoral

I apologize, I should have been clearer. As instigator, I intend to assume burden of proof for this debate. I will put my argument in the form of a syllogism and then support my premises with evidence. Premise 1: From fertilization, the preborn are biological members of humanity. Premise 2: All members of humanity are intrinsically valuable based on the kind of thing they are, humans. Premise 3: It is prima facie wrong to kill an innocent human being. Premise 4: Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is generally immoral. Premise 1Embryologists, who are the experts in the field, consistently agree that life begins at fertilization. For example, from the most-used textbook on embryology, the authors note: "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte. " [1]On top of that, the more sophisticated pro-choice philosophers, like Judith Jarvis Thompson (who came up with the famous analogy of the violinist), and Peter Singer, accept the full humanity of the preborn. Peter Singer has noted, “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo Sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being. ” [2]It's simply common sense. We know the preborn are alive because they grow. Non-living and dead things don't grow. They also exhibit the four signs of life: metabolism, growth, cell division, response to stimuli, and cell reproduction. [3] The preborn have human DNA, and they are the product of human parents. Creatures reproduce after their own kind; dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. At no point in human development is a member of humanity a "non-human. "This is also different from saying that a hair follicle has human DNA, so it is wrong to pluck them out. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses are unique individual humans, developing from within, made up of all the individual parts. A hair follicle must stay plugged in to the parent organism to function. However, the parent organism can still function even if he/she loses parts of their body. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a full human organism made up of individual parts of which it develops from within, not constructed like a car. The pro-life position is that life begins at fertilization, which is supported by science. The pro-choice position places "human life" at certain arbitrary points which change from human to human. The pro-life position is the only consistent one. Premise 2Human value is an intrinsic value, not an instrumental one. Most people agree that humans outside the womb are valuable and should be protected. People decry the loss of innocent human life, especially when those lives lost are children. Human value is not something we get in degrees, it's something we either have or don't have. A pre-born human is just as valuable as a born human, and any reason used to rationalize abortion due to the preborn human being "different" leads to discrimination and would allow us to discriminate against someone outside the womb who fits those same characteristics. Aside from simply belonging to our species, Homo Sapiens, preborn humans have the inherent capacity to perform the functions that make human beings valuable. All the things that make humans value (e. g. sentience) may not be immediately exhibited by a human in utero, but they have the inherent capacity to fulfill these functions. If you are going to support abortion because they do not immediately exercise those functions, then like certain pro-choice philosophers (e. g. Michael Tooley and Peter Singer), you must also support infanticide, killing people in their sleep, and killing people in a reversible coma. Premise 3When I say the preborn are innocent human beings, I am not talking "spiritually" innocent, but physically innocent. They have committed no crime, and certainly not anything worthy of being killed for it. The only thing they have done is exist, and in the vast majority of cases it was through a consensual action of two people. If two people engage in a consensual act that results in the creation of a new, needy human life, they bear a responsibility to care for that life. Premise 4Every abortion takes the life of a new, unique, living member of humanity, which has an intrinsic value just based on being human. Abortions take the life of an innocent, unique human being and is therefore immoral. My contention is that because the preborn are biological members of humanity, humans are intrinsically valueable, and killing an innocent member of humanity is wrong, then killing them through the act of abortion is immoral. If Con is to win this debate, he must show why the preborn are not members of humanity. For if they are not human, then no justification for abortion is necessary. But if they are human, then no justification for abortion is sufficient. Thank you for reading and I look forward to Con's response. [1] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8. [2] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86. [3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com............;