Abortion (See for scenario)

Con has either misunderstood what I said or deliberately ignored some of my statements._______________________________________________________________________________________Rebuttals: "Even though your friend would almost certainly want that money, since he's not around, you completely discount what he would want. This is just like the zygote. Even though it is completely incapable of answering, we know in the future what it would want."-This is a bad analogy. You can also infer this from your friend because you know your friend. You know his/her personalities, preferences, and habbits, but you don't know the potential personalities, preferences, and habbits of a zygote. As mentioned already by me, decision making comes from freewill and conscious experience. Your friend is different because he/she has had experiences that conditioned him to desire the money. Your friend has memories where he used money to buy things he liked, and so he wants the money because he associates it with positive connotations. However, how do you account for the people who wouldn't want the money? My grandpa for example, would not have wanted the money because he's content with what he has. -A zygote has had no experiences that would make it want to desire life. Con is arguing that if a zygote can think, it will desire to develop into a fetus and be born as a human. Con is implying that everyone wants to live no matter what. This is not true, as is the case with severely depressed people. -Con is assuming that if a zygote can think, it will think like your average person and desire to be born as a human. But who are we to know what a zygote thinks like if it could even think? Con has the burden of proof. "how would you feel if you got jipped out of your life because at the time, you couldn't answer? You'd probably feel like it was a totally cheap excuse."-Again, zygotes can't feel, so this analogy is irrelevant. Furthermore, if zygotes could feel, how would you know what it felt like? Maybe it wouldn't want to be born as a human and live as a human. How do we know? Con is basing his assumptions off of how the average person thinks, which does not account for how everyone and everything thinks. -If the average male preying mantis can think on the same level of intelligence as humans, it would think something along the lines of "I wish I'd get my head eaten off by a female manits." because that's what happens whenever a female mantis mates with a male mantis. Humans obviously don't think like this, so how do you know a zygote will think like an average human?"It's kind of like if you're building a house for your family."-This analogy goes against Con. If you aren't even close to finish building your house and it is destroyed by a tornado, you wouldn't feel as bad as if it were destroyed by a tornado right after you finished building it.-Therefore this analogy supports me resolution. Aborting a zygote within three weeks is much better than doing it when it is a developed fetus."The difference between killing skin cells and zygotes is this: a zygote is eventually going to be an undisputed human being...A single sperm cell on its own has no capability to be anything more than a sperm cell"-Sperm cells have the capabilities to become zygotes, therefore it has the capability to become human. However, Con's logic is stating that sperm cells need to fuse with an egg cell in order to become a zygote, therefore sperm cells cannot have the have this capability without help from an external source. I would like to remind Con that zygotes also require help from external sources to have this capability and that a single zygote does not have the capability to become a human being. Zygotes need to perform mitosis (cell-division) to eventually become a being. In other words, it requires several cells to become a human being, and by then, it would be a fetus and not a zygote."If you leave it alone it will grow into a human being just like you and me. How can that potential not be considered 'its future" -Because we don't leave it alone. We aborted it. Therefore it has no future. It doesn't even have a potential future because we aborted it. How can something dead have a potential life? It may have had a potential life if we chose not to abort it, but we chose to abort it, so it has not potential life."no egg/sperm has acquired a claim to life in the future until it has become a zygote."-And no zygote has acquired a claim to life in the future until it becomes a fetus. You're point?"It is impossible that every child who came into existence through rape will end up killing themselves. That means at least some of them will live out their lives. So what's worse? Nobody living out their lives, or some people living out their lives?-Con has noted the word "some", yet uses the word "every". Also, impossible is a very strong word. A better word would be "unlikely". -I am not saying every pregnant woman should abort fetuses, therefore some people would live out thier lives. "And who's to say that all of these people will be miserable with their lives. Some of them would get adopted and live no worse for wear than any normally conceived person. Given this, not aborting would produce more happy lives than aborting would."-Again, I am not saying all of them will be miserable, but some of them. And if some of them are miserable, then it certainly would be acceptable in some cases for abortion. Con's resolution in round one states that every case of aborting a zygote concieved by rape is not acceptable. But my resolution is that some are acceptable. -Con is delibrately trying to twist my statements. I am not saying "all" but "some". And if some are miserable, then isn't it acceptable for these specific people to have been aborted when they were still a zygote, preventing all their pain and suffering?"A body part that will eventually grow into a human being? No other body part does stuff like that, yet we can classify a zygote like an arm or leg?"-But it hasn't grown into a human being. It is but one cell. That is exactly why I specified in round one that the time limit be 3 weeks. Another body part that does stuff like that is the sperm cell.-It is not 100% certain that the zygote will grow into a human being. There is the possibility that it will die before doing so. Therefore, it can grow into a human being, just like a sperm cell can grow into a human being, and by justifying the deaths of sperm cells, Con has justified the deaths of zygotes."You could also conclude that if two parents are murdered, their leftover orphan is illegal, because it came into orphan-hood through a crime."-Okay. So Con agrees? I'll remember to put that on the scoreboard."they way I am referring to the zygote here is as if it's a life, hopefully this isn't unacceptable to anybody reading this"-The zygote is alive, just like sperm cells and cancer cells are alive. Yet how do you justify the deaths of sperm cells. How do you justify doctors killing cancer cells to cure a patient?"Even though a correlation between abortion and crime has been found, we should consider the big picture."-Con concedes that abortion reduces crime._____________________________________________________________________________________In the comment section, Con says that he accidentally hit submit, so he couldn't finish his argument. Therefore, I will not provide an Addendum containing new points, to let Con catch up.