Abortion is morally indefensible.

Con has not shown that a preborn human is anything but a human. Additionally, Con has not shown any reasons to morally justify killing an innocent human being.My main contention is that it is immoral to kill an innocent human being, innocent meaning having not committed any crime, certainly one not deserving of death. If the preborn members of our species are human (which they are, as I showed in the previous round), then there is no moral justification for killing a preborn human. If you are going to morally justify killing a preborn human, then those reasons must not also be applicable to a born human. Otherwise you would have to reject abortion as immoral, or accept infanticide or some forms of murder as morally justified.Con has actually used misleading information as to embryonic development. The heart develops during the fifth week of pregnancy, but conception occurs during the third week of pregnancy (the first two weeks are in preparation), so the heart develops after only the third week of conception. [1] Additionally, Con is incorrect about the signs of life. First of all, he misuses fetus (the embryo becomes a fetus after the second or third month of gestation). Secondly, the embryo is growing. This is a sign of life not present in a lump of feces. Dead or non-living things don't grow.However, this is irrelevant. As we know, someone's heart can stop completely yet they can still be revived, their heart restarted, provided help doesn't take too long. Also, someone can lose all brain activity and still be biologically alive, although the person they were is gone. However, this is much different than a zygote/embryo/fetus because in a brain dead patient, the person will never recover whereas in a ZEF, their biological life is just beginning and they are developing upon the natural path of human development.To respond to Con's contentions.C1: Humans establish their moral right to live on a scale of viability.Con has not successfully established this point. His contention that we are all guilty every time someone we know dies is ridiculous. I am not a trained physician. If someone dies I am not at fault because I don't have the knowledge or training to save them. If I do have that knowledge or training, then I am at fault for allowing someone to die that I could have saved.If someone has "slackened their grip on life," then we are not morally justified in allowing that person to die (not to mention, Con has not proven that we are). If a person is shot on a battlefield, if the medic chooses not to save him then the medic is at fault for the loss of life. He would likely be court-martialed and sent to jail, losing his job as a medic and probably given a dishonorable discharge.Doctors are able to reasonably assess an ailment and how much of a chance a person stands of living. They don't give up unless they see there is absolutely nothing they can do. Unless the person, themselves (or someone with power of attorney) says stop giving care, doctors will do all that they can do for that person. Doctors are morally required to do no less.However, these points are irrelevant since Con is talking about allowing an ailing person to die, and abortion is being the agent of killing another living human.C2: Foetal uncertainty/action or inactionHere, Con has created a strawman argument against me. I did not call them "pre-human," I called them "preborn humans." In other words, they are humans simply before the event of birth. They are human from fertilization, as I established in the last round.In the cases where a blastocyst implants itself in the wrong area, if the woman's immediate life is in danger then it no longer becomes a case of abortion but triage. Both mother and child are in danger but only one can be saved, the one with the greater chance of survival, the mother, is saved. It is not a question of valuing one over the other, but saving the one with the greater chance of survival. All humans are equally valuable -- the preborn human is as valuable as the mother, and you have not shown why it should not be considered less valuable.In the case of twins, it should be considered on a case-by-case basis. The preborn are not potential humans, they are humans -- they are potential toddlers. If there is only one zygote, we treat it as a human life. If it splits off into twins, then there are now two lives to take care of. It doesn't matter if it has the "potential" to split into twins. If there's only one zygote, there is one human life present and it should be protected.Additionally, it doesn't matter how many pregnancies end in miscarriage. People die of natural causes. That does not morally justify murder. As such, miscarriages do not morally justify abortion.In fact, the pro-life position is the only consistent one -- that life begins at fertilization. Pro-choicers come up with many different times to determine if it's a life (e.g. viability, birth, quickening, etc.) But these all change based on the individual. Especially viability, considering that medical technologies continue to improve, the viability of a preborn fetus changes.C3: Who's morality?First, I would like to make something clear. What I have said in past debates is irrelevant. People on this site often play devil's advocate so their words could not be used against them without creating a strawman argument.Secondly, only some truths are subjective. For example, the best ice cream flavor or the best musical style, are subjective opinions. However, morality is objective. Killing an innocent person is always wrong. This is something that most people know. If someone would not feel remorse over killing someone else, they are considered a psychopath and locked away in a mental institution. Killing and innocent person being wrong is an objective truth. It doesn't matter what "subjective opinion" says about abortion.The preborn are humans from fertilization and killing an innocent person is wrong.[1] http://www.mayoclinic.com...;