Abortion is Generally Immoral.

Comments on abortion debate in generalI agree that neither "pro choice" or "pro life" term fully explains the position of either side, after all there only two words and that's alot to ask of two words, But never the less pro choice is more to the point at least on the legality of abortion, you can choose to have an abortion. Pro life on the other hand doesn't tell you the legal position on the surface and its only once you get passed the spiel of "respecting life" you get to the criminalisation of abortion part. "Pre born" is a deceptive termIn the last round I wondered why Pro constantly used the term "pre born", I thought it was their own way of speaking, but now after the last round it has become more apparent why Pro uses the term "pre born". For starters the term pre born assumes that say the cells of human fertilization or a 3 day embryo will continue to becoming fetus, to be born and then a child. But this of course is factually false. If Pro can reference a human fertilization as "pre born" cause it MIGHT continue a development into a human child does that mean I can call it a "pre death trap" since it MIGHT develop in a way to cause the death of the woman ? The point here being, its false to call a human fertilization a "pre born" since this presupposes a birth or child just like its wrong to call it a "pre death trap" cause this presupposes its going to kill the woman. Pro equates a few human cells of fertilization to a human childPro says. .. "The only difference between a preborn child and a born one is that the preborn are still in the stage of human development before the stage of being a child"WHOA, WHOA, WHOA ! !! its this kind of "reasoning" that gives support for people to claim things like "ABORTION KILLS CHILDREN" [1] & "Billions Killed By Abortion: When Will We Stop Killing Our Children" [2]Lets be quite clear here, Pro is equating the few cells of say human fertilization or a 3 day human embryo with a HUMAN CHILD ! !! Few human cells = pre born child = child, this is the logic that Pro is working off, and its bad. Cause assuming we all agree that killing a child is immoral or at least "prima facie" immoral, then since a few human cells is the equivalent to a human child, well if you destroy those few human cells you are morally equivalent to a person that MURDERS CHILDREN! !! Consider the following example that we are in a gun factory, and we are looking at various materials in the product of guns like metal & wood. I say to you pointing to the metal and wood, that's a gun. Of course you don't agree with me and point out there is no gun there, but I say, oh but you see, that it is a gun, the wood and metal is just a stage within the development of the gun and thus there is no difference between to two. Now consider the same example, but this time I get you to hold the metal & wood, at which point I kill you. In court I use self defense as a justification, I make my case to the judge, the metal & wood you held is the same as holding a gun, there is no difference between the two, they are just in different stages of gun development and thus I killed in the act of self defense. I'll bet the judge isn't going to buy any of that, and maybe if you really thought that way you might get off based on insanity. The point here being its wrong to equate metal & wood as a gun, just as its wrong to equate a few human cells at human fetilization with a human child. Personhood is not part of Pros argumentYou will recall as part of my last round argument I had the premise. .. P1: It is prima facie immoral to kill an innocent human PERSON, Pro responds. .. "Why would I dispute this? This premise appears in my own syllogism. "Oh no it doesn't, I went to some length in the last round to make the distinction between something being human biologically speaking, and something being a human PERSON and the two are not the same, and considering Pro later on claims personhood is not part of their argument I can only wonder why Pro would think that my premise is the same as theirs. But I think this point may be mute now as Pro informs us. .. . "Notice that my argument did not hinge on whether or not they should be considered "persons. " My argument is that the preborn are human and therefore it is immoral to kill them. "There is a very important point here, personhood has nothing to do with how Pro presents something as "human", so on what basis does Pro say something is human ? well as Pro says in their first premise. .. ""P1: From fertilization, the preborn are biological members of humanity. "As I argued before, its untenable to give something the "right to life" just because its BIOLOGICALLY human, as this would mean, sperm, cells on your nose etc have a right to life as they are biologically human. Pro says. .. "At all times when I refer to the preborn being human, I mean they are members of the species homo sapien. " So how does Pro determine if something is a member of homo sapien species ? Pro bases its on the DNA, as Pros own source says. .. "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" [3]Pro grants that personhood is not part of their argument as to what gets a right to life. But this backfires, because Pro can't use personhood in order to give a right to life to a human child, and when I say a human child, I mean a literal human child, none of this "pre born child" non sense. All Pro can appeal to is that the human child is bioloigcaly human, but as I have argued to give right to life based soley on whether something has human DNA sure it includes a human child, but it also includes the cells on your nose and sperm. Consider the following argument. ..1) If something contrains human DNA then its human and has a right to life2) Human sperm contrains human dnaC) Therefore human sperm has a right to lifeOr1) If something contrains human DNA then its human and has a right to life2) The cells on your nose have human dnaC) Therefore the cells on your nose have a right to lifeBy Reductio ad absurdum we can see that the first premise leads to absurdities, and thus to give "right to life" soley on the basis of something having human DNA should be rejected. Pro says. .. "If you make the case that if we kill skin cells (or hair, or whatever) then we are committing genocide, you are making the mistake of confusing parts with wholes. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses are full human beings. "How does Pro determine whether something is a FULL HUMAN BEING ? Does a 3 day embryo think ? no, does it feel ? no, does it have any "will" ? no, does it have a human heart, lungs, brain ? no. I think Pro should tell us what is the necessary condition/s something has to have in order to be a FULL HUMAN BEING and thus have a right to life, and not just Pro assertions of what is and what isn't a full human being. As such my counter argument can be formulated as such. ..1) It is prima facie immoral to kill a FULL HUMAN BEING2) A 3 day human embryo is not necessarily a full human beingC) Therefore destroying a 3 day human embryo is not necessarily prima facie immoralOr if Pro wants to stick to the cells at human feterlization1) It is prima facie immoral to kill a FULL HUMAN BEING2) The cells present at human feterlization are not necessarily a full human beingC) Therefore destroying the cells present at human fertilization is not necessarily prima facie immoralI look forward to Pros reply. Sources[1] . http://abortionkillschildren.org...[2] . http://www.christiannewswire.com...[3] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.