Abortion is morally indefensible.

As it is the final round, I will simply be reaffirming my positions as previously stated. It seems that Pro has misunderstood or merely mischaracterized my position - so I will attempt to make it as clear as possible. Pro states that the debate should be "clinched" for him, as I have not claimed that it is right to kill innocent humans. I will quote myself: "you cannot punish something that cannot know it is being punished," and "humanity or lack thereof is not necessary to provide moral justification for its termination." I refer further to my previous arguments:"I do not claim that zygotes are not potential humans, but I do claim that those who have already struggled into the world have more of a claim on life than a pile of cells with a squidge of DNA"and"82% of 'pre-humans' will never be humans. I argue then that you cannot murder something that stands less than a 1 in 5 chance of ever having a heartbeat."For these previously established reasons, it does not matter whether or not it is wrong to murder the innocent - that is not what is contested. What is contested is the conditions under which one must be considered human for moral purposes - not scientific ones. As I indicated previously, these qualities include cognizance, self-awareness and feelings, as well as the ability to make choices. These qualities exclude sleeping people,[5] but include those in persistent vegetative states - which, again, is why I brought them up - and early stages of pregnancy. Pro claimed that cellular division (growth) and respiration are adequate signs of life, but again I remind the reader that these same qualities apply to dog crap. Organisms within feces are breathing and reproducing, but we would never consider a moral obligation to them. Again, the argument over whether a zygote is human or not is merely semantic, and has no bearing on the outcome of this debate. In some respects it must make sense to refer to them as human, but that sense does not necessarily apply to moral obligation any more than in the case of feces. I, as well as many others, consider the conditions of one's existence to be substantive, rather than the terminology by which we refer to them. Some people's moral ideologies do determine the morality of abortion based on that terminology, but certainly not everyones - which brings me to my next point.Pro states that "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." However, I have continually been discussing some main points of Pro-Choice ideology over the course of this debate. If my arguments have not convinced Pro personally, that is alright, and I am not required to convince him by the terms of this debate. As I stated earlier, "the onus is on me to demonstrate that there do exist moral justifications for abortion, and my opponent must demonstrate that there do not." In satisfying my burden, it is not necessary for me to show the falsehood of commonly accepted ideas - that is the burden of Pro, my opponent, who must "demonstrate that there do not." As for Pro's contention that I have not "given an acceptable reason that killing an innocent human in utero is morally justified," I would ask the reader to refer back and see whether or not I have spent the majority of this debate giving exactly those sorts of reasons - reasons which define the differences between a human in utero, and one ex utero (if you will). It is irrelevant whether or not Pro finds my reasons "acceptable." What is relevant is that I and many others find those reasons to be ample moral justification for abortion - so I have indeed shown that there do exist moral justifications for abortion, satisfying my burden. In contradiction to Pro's notion of morality as "objective fact," the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines morality is 1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her* own behavior It is the merest truism to state that there exist societies, groups of people, and individuals that feel that abortion is morally defensible in many cases. For instance, The National Abortion Federation [1], Pro-Choice America, [2], and Planned Parenthood [3], as well as the 1973 Supreme Court of the United States of America.[4] Even the Hebrew Bible discussed circumstances under which abortion is morally acceptable, in Numbers 5:11-31.[6]While I disagree with the Bible's proposition that abortion should be used as a punishment, it still stands as another of many examples of abortion-accepting moralities. Pro's idea of "objective truth" may represent his personal view, but it is not the same as morality - which is a formally defined concept. In light of this, Pro's "objective truth" should not be considered in determining the outcome of this debate.Pro has additionally failed to even mention my twice stated point, that he "must demonstrate that one conception of morality is superior to all others, and that it entirely and unflinchingly rules out abortion as a possibility." As I stated, "if he cannot, then he must accept that the subjectivity of morality provides its own justifications for abortion, and the resolution is moot." The fact that he has failed to address this marks the barest proof that he has not affirmed the resolution. To reiterate, as Pro has not - in any round of this debate - demonstrated that a single morality exists by which abortion is considered indefensible,[7] then he has failed to prove that abortion is morally indefensible. His attempts to characterize this debate in other terms have been refuted, but this most evident requirement stands untouched by him. By the terms set out at the start of this debate, Pro has lost. The fact that I have succeeded in demonstrating that there exist many moral justifications or abortion marks just as clearly that I have negated the resolution. I have given substantial evidence that early stage in utero humans differ from those post-birth, and that many people hold that evidence as moral justification for abortion. By the terms set out at the start of this debate, I have won.Thanks for reading our debate. citations:[1]http://www.prochoice.org...[2]http://www.prochoiceamerica.org...[3]http://www.plannedparenthood.org...[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] As in the straw man "Con would have us believe that it is more morally acceptable to kill someone in their sleep..."[6]http://www.biblegateway.com...[7] Which is of course clearly impossible to begin with..*sic