Abortion is morally indefensible.

I wish to thank Con for this debate, and hope that the readers, likewise, consider this an interesting topic of discussion.Notice that Con has actually agreed with my contention, that it is wrong to kill an innocent human. This should clinch the debate for me, for as we know we are human from fertilization (as I showed in my first argument) and the preborn are innocent. They have not committed any crime, and certainly not one deserving of being put to death for it.Con has gone off on a red herring. The preborn are innocent of any wrongdoing -- it doesn't matter whether they understand punishment or not, they have not committed any crime. We don't punish them, not due to ignorance of what punishment is, but because they have not done anything wrong. In the vast majority of cases, the mother and father are responsible for the child's creation.The preborn are not simple "human grubs," but are in fact new, unique human beings (again, please refer to the embryologists from my first argument). Caterpillars should not be called butterflies from the beginning because they are caterpillars. They go through a process of metamorphosis and change into butterflies. But at no time in human gestation does an embryo suddenly go through a metamorphosis and suddenly "become" human. Zygote/embryo/fetus are just stages of human development, as toddler/adolescent/teenager are.Con would also have us believe that it is more morally acceptable to kill someone in their sleep than to kill them while they're awake because they would have no awareness of it. It would be equally wrong to kill a sleeping person and a person who is awake because you are killing an intrinsically valuable human being. The reason it is morally wrong to kill a preborn human is because they have a future like we do. A braindead person does not have a future as anything. The person they were is gone and will never come back. But a living preborn human is a growing, valuable human being with a future as a living, valuable human being. It has nothing to do with one's morality. The only reason for keeping a brain dead patient alive is because their family isn't able to let go.(Also, I don't mean to be nit-picky but if someone insists on using the "scientifically correct terms" of zygote, embryo and fetus over "child," I insist on using the "scientifically correct terms" correctly.)I have not abandoned my argument that abortion is wrong because it kills a living human being. You have just not refuted it yet. In order to prove abortion is morally justified, you must prove that killing an innocent human being is morally justified (which you even admitted to in your opening paragraph last round).C1I was indicating that having medical training puts a moral responsibility to save someone in the example you provided (a soldier shot on a battlefield, or someone I know dying). If I have not been trained in CPR or the Heimlich maneuver, I should not attempt to administer these on someone who needs it because I could make the situation worse.I have already shown that it is not more morally correct to terminate someone with no awareness.I have already stated the points were irrelevant because in these cases, you are allowing someone to die whereas in abortion, you are acting to take the life of the living human being.C2A straw man argument is an argument is an argument you create that I don't hold to, and attack that position. It may not completely be a strawman but you did misquote me and try to use the argument against me. I did not state that the preborn are "pre-human." That would indicate they are not yet human and then become human at some arbitrary point in their development. This was not my argument, so it did substantially misrepresent my argument. My argument is that we are human from fertilization. Not "pre-human" but "preborn humans." In other words, human before the point at which they are born.Therefore, his argument fails. I have already shown this. Yes, women do miscarry. But humans die of natural causes. This does not give us a right to murder. Women miscarry, but this does not give us a right to commit abortion. As such, I push last round's refutation of C2 forward into the next round. With one addendum, that I meant to include in my argument. It is scientifically incorrect to state that just because a preborn human's heart has not started beating yet, it is not alive or not human. The young human is still developing the heart. In fact, a born human's heart can stop beating and be re-started, and the person survives. They may not be able to survive for long with the heart, but they can survive.A person's body is not truly "dead" until its cells stop communicating with each other. This is why a brain dead patient can still continue to grow. Before the heart develops, the zygote/embryo is still a living human that develops itself from within. It is not yet dependent on the heart for survival because it has not yet reached that point in its development.C3You haven't touched a nerve in quoting me. I was just showing that my words in previous debates cannot be used against me in this debate. This debate is what matters. For example, peoples' beliefs evolve and even if I had believed in subjective truth in the past, I may have rejected that in favor of objective truth now. As such, what matters in this debate are my arguments in this debate.The question of whether an embryo/fetus can feel pain is academic. First of all, if your argument for abortion is that the unborn don't suffer, then you must be against abortions after 20 weeks because 20-week-old fetuses feel pain. [1] Also, whose suffering are you talking about? Abortions affect not only the mother, but the father who may have wanted to keep the child. What about others in their life which may be emotionally distraught that she had an abortion? Additionally, what of the fact that the person you're killing doesn't get a choice as to whether to live or die?Not all killings cause pain. I already used the example of killing someone in their sleep. But what if you poison someone? Or use a method that kills instantly without causing pain? Does that become morally acceptable?Many people are against abortion because they believe in an immortal soul, but it's not essential to the pro-life position. There are pro-life atheists.My opponent still has not proven that killing an innocent human being is wrong (in fact, he admitted that it is). It doesn't matter what our respective moralities are. It is commonly accepted that killing an innocent human is wrong. Con has not given an acceptable reason that killing an innocent human in utero is morally justified while killing an innocent human outside the womb is not.[1] http://discovermagazine.com...;