Abortion is Generally Immoral.

Comments about general abortion debatesThe problem with terms like "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are that they do not adequately describe the position of those who hold it, nor are the opponents actually "anti-choice" or "anti-life. " Pro-life used within the CONTEXT of abortion is that we respect the life of the preborn, which pro-choicers do not, therefore it can be said within the context that pro-choicers are actually "anti-life. " However, this is needlessly inflammatory. Pro-lifers are no more anti-choice than pro-choicers are anti-life. Again, this debate is not on the legality of abortion, or even a squabble over terms, so readers should regard these comments as an interesting side-discussion, with no bearing on the actual debate itself. The debate is on whether or not abortion is generally immoral. Its legality is a topic for another debate. Countering Con's ArgumentI have not referred to humanity in ambiguous ways. In fact, I was quite specific. The preborn from fertilization are biologically human (as has been shown by the experts, embryologists). They are the products of human parents, have human DNA, and exhibit the signs of life (e. g. respiration, cell division, growth, etc. ). I was quite specific in my treatment of why the preborn are members of humanity. 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. But even being a child does not mean you are "fully developed" (this doesn't happen until your late teens or twenties). Toddlers, adolescents, etc. are still developing. Development doesn't stop just because a child leaves the womb. Premise 1: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. If Con wants to argue that they are not persons, then the burden of proof rests on him to show that they are not. Premise 2:Con has accused me of equivocating, but I submit that it is actually Con who is guilty of equivocation in this debate. At all times when I refer to the preborn being human, I mean they are members of the species homo sapien. However, Con refers to "human beings" and cells which are "human"; his term "human" is being used in different ways. 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. They are developing from within and have all the parts which make up a whole entity. However, hair, skin cells, etc. , are mere parts of a full human body. If you kill a preborn human, you are killing a living, unique member of humanity. Premise 3:To reiterate, it is not I but Con who has equivocated. Whenever I refer to the preborn being human, I always mean a member of humanity. They are a full, unique, living member of our human species. The fact that they have human DNA, and unique DNA from the mother, shows that they are a unique individual. If anything, my case is that simply being a living member of humanity makes them a "person" with a right to life that should be protected. Con has given no reason to reject this and if he believes that the preborn do not deserve "personhood" status, the burden of proof for that rests on him. However, the word "person" is nothing but a legal term which allows for legal discrimination of anyone not deemed a "person. " Blacks were once considered sub-human, only considered 3/5's of a person for voting purposes. My contention is that being a member of humanity makes them inherently valuable, and their right to life should be protect at all stages, including in utero. I will respond to Con's syllogism. P1: Why would I dispute this? This premise appears in my own syllogism. P2: Con has not given sufficient reason to reject the preborn as not deserving of personhood, especially since he has not refuted my case. In fact, Con is making my case for me that personhood is a legal term which allows for legal discrimination of a group of humans (such as when blacks were once discriminated against). Con keeps mentioning personhood but I don't think I once used the term "person" in my argument. My argument is that by simply being a member of humanity they should be protected, and Con has not given sufficient argument for why this should not be the case. It seems that Con has created a strawman argument in place of my actual argument. A 3-day embryo may look different, but this does not exclude it from being a unique human individual. While a 3-day embryo may not "look human" yet, it looks exactly as a human should at that point in its development. To reiterate, my argument is that by being a member of humanity, which we are all the way from fertilization (as I showed in the first round), our right to life should be protected. I said nothing of personhood. ALL members of humanity have a right to life that should be protected. To take away that most basic of human rights is immoral. My contention stands that abortion is generally immoral.