Abortion is wrong

I shall lay out my case before responding to Con so that my rebuttals will have a framework.My caseI will be making three contentions.1. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a human life2. There is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human life3. This moral obligation is of the highest orderThroughout this debate round, "unborn" may be used to mean an unborn human at any of the three stages of zygote, embryo or fetus.Contention #1 - The unborn is a human lifeThe standard, biology textbook definition of life is 1) the ability to grow and 2) the ability to reproduce.[1] In other words, if something grows and possesses the ability to reproduce at some point in its life cycle (barring some sort of defect), then it is considered by the scientific community to be alive.By this standard, the unborn can be considered to be a life. But what if we use a more advanced definition such as the one below? Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells â€" the basic units of life. Metabolism Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototroism), and chemotaxis. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.[1][2] Once again, the unborn meets all the criteria for life.However, this is somewhat irrelevant. After all, bacteria and blades of grass are also alive, and we feel no moral qualms about killing them. Why, then, is the zygote/embryo/fetus different? Put simply, because it is a human life. By definition, a product of reproduction is of the same kind as its "parents."[3] I offer this Merriam-Webster definition of fetus as further proof: "a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born."[4]Contention #2 - There is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human lifeThis statement is accpeted as a general truth by most of humanity regardless of what moral system a person adheres to. Even the somewhat amoral utilitarianism can be leveraged against the destruction of innocent life. However, I present this contention in the off chance that Con disagrees with its tagline.To quote from my personal blog, we can prove that there is a moral obligation to preserve life using assumptions made by the pro-choice side itself. If abortion is necessary, as they claim, to ensure quality of life for women, we may infer that life has some value. Because they claim that government has no right to interfere with their reproductive decisions (and, thus, their quality of life), we may also infer that they believe their quality of life to have value that exceeds governmental law. God, divine law, higher law, natural law, morality, ethics—whatever one chooses to call it, the pro-choice community indirectly references it when placing value upon life.Contention #3 - This moral obligation is of the highest orderAs can be evidenced by Kant's Formulations of the Imperative, ignoring this moral obligation results in greater devastation than the violation of any other moral obligation can (including such hypothetical consequences as the extinction of the human race).Also, remember that the pro-choice community references a "higher law" when making their claims, unintentionally implying that life is valuable.Clearly, then, the protection of innocent life supersedes any other demands upon our free will.RebuttalsI shall now proceed to respond to Con's case line by line."My position is that abortion isn't wrong. My position isn't necessarily a moral issue, however if you wish to argue through morals I can make that argument quite clearly."Given that the topic of this debate and your position is that abortion isn't wrong (wrong meaning "behavior that is not morally good or correct)[9] how could this be argued as anything other than a moral issue?"I don't believe that abortion is wrong because it should be the mothers choice whether or not to have a child."Since those who argue for abortion are arguing that the mother has the right to choose whether to carry her pregnancy to term or not, this statement is like saying that abortion is not wrong because abortion is not wrong.The nonsensicality of this sentence aside, I must point out that it begs the question of whether or not the child has the right to life, the issue that entire debate revolves around. If it does, then your claim that the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy is false."I do understand that it is essentially 'killing a potential life form' however if it's a case of murder wouldn't it then be wrong to have the death penalty? After all the person there would be being killed as well."This assumes that the death penalty is not wrong, which is a separate debate. Also, there is a moral difference between killing an innocent (abortion) and killing someone who merits death due to his or her actions (capital punishment)."Another thing to consider is that some of the mothers getting abortions are far too young to have children, whether they knew it was a possibility to get pregnant or not in some cases it's much better to not have the child be brought on the earth than to have it live a terrible life with an inexperienced mother, is it not? Or do you perhaps believe that a child deserves to live a bad life because 'abortion is wrong'."Why do you have the moral right to decide for someone else that their living conditions are so poor that they would be better off dead? Is it justifiable to "cleanse" slums and orphanages in your worldview?"Another thing to take into consideration is that some of the women getting abortions were raped. Do you think it's fair to ask a woman to have a child she never asked for? Whose father abused her mentally and physically? Is it right to make her keep that child and to always have the memory of what happened to her? For her to have to support a child she never wanted and never asked for whose father would never be present?"I would like to ask Con to explain why she believes it is acceptable to kill someone because they remind one of an unpleasant person or experience. Are there any other instances in which this is acceptable? Also, let us recall that there is a moral obligation to sacrifice in order to preserve innocent life. Mental trauma, though highly unfortunate, is a secondary evil to death.Sources1. http://www2.una.edu...2. http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu...3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...4. http://www.merriam-webster.com...5. http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org...6. Ibid.7. Ibid.8. Ibid.9. http://www.merriam-webster.com...