Abortion is prima facie morally wrong.

It has been great; let's finish this. C1: It is not always wrong to kill an innocent human being. My opponent continues to claim that Coma Guy has a right to life because of his "memories, personalities, and desires. " In Round 2, however, I pointed out that there is no evidence to back up this statement, but only the opinions of my opponent and one other man. He has ignored this objection completely. He then claims that my mentioning of DNA is a contradiction; apparently, the criteria for a right to life cannot be both having a complete set of DNA and having the potential to become conscious. However, this was merely a refutation of his point that having memories and such determine a right to life, and that DNA was more important than just memories. I still maintain my original criteria for a right to life as the potential to become conscious. As far as my example goes, I agree, it is only useful to whoever has valid points. However, my points are no less valid than my opponent's; he cannot prove that personality is where Coma Guy gains a right to life any more than I can prove that his potential to become conscious does. C2: A fetus is not a person and thus cannot have a serious right to life. My opponent creates a dichotomy in which the right to life rests either in their mental properties or their potential mental properties, and intends to eliminate the second choice through his next contention. C3: An entity's potentials cannot grant that entity rights. My opponent claims that this contention is only supplementary, but this is false. C2 relies on C3 to be true for it to be true, and C1 relies on C2 for it to be true, so unless my opponent can win this contention, he cannot win this debate. My opponent's only assertion to affirm this contention throughout this debate has been to compare a fetus to a sperm cell, and claim that if a fetus has a serious right to life, then so does a sperm cell. My opponent again claims that a sperm cell has the passive potential to become a fully conscious person because "something could be done to a sperm cell that would allow it to develop into a fully conscious person. " However, that's like saying that an entrepreneur has the passive potential to become a multi-national corporation. A corporation is multiple people; the original entrepreneur is hardly the entire company, unless he managed to replicate himself a thousand times like a bacteria. However, the entrepreneur does not replicate himself a thousand times; he simply finds other people to join with to form a multi-national corporation. Therefore, the entrepreneur is not a potential multi-national corporation, but instead a potential part of a potential multi-national corporation. Similarly, a sperm cell is not a potential person, but instead a potential half of a potential person; this is the point that I've been saying this entire debate, but never refuted. As for my comment on the analogy involving Obama, I can see where the confusion would be. I was merely pointing out that X having the potential to become Y does not make X Y, but this does not mean that X having the potential to become Y does not allow X to have quality Z. ::Conclusion:: My opponent's points break down in a domino effect. Given that my opponent's only case against potentials granting entities rights fails, his assertion that only people have a right to life becomes unfounded. His only other support for this assertion would be the opinions of himself and Michael Tooley, nothing more. This assertion was the only established difference between a fetus and a comatose person; as my opponent has agreed that a comatose person has a right to life, a fetus, therefore, also has a right to life. My opponent, in his final conclusion, asks what would happen if we met an alien species of comparable mental capacity, and whether or not they'd have a right to life. Once we and the other species mutually agreed to recognize the other species' right to life, members of their species would have a similar right to life, and fetuses of either species would have a right to life.