Newly revealed natural scientific laws govern the morality of abortion

"Con has wasted most of his debate space avoiding the issues of the debate."That's not true. In fact, I defeated your argument quite thoroughly. But let's recap:The resolution that we are debating is "newly revealed natural scientific laws govern the morality of abortion." I have clearly shown that it does not. Whether or not a woman can become pregnant with a wanted child while pregnant with an unwanted one does not govern the morality of abortion. Whether or not the unborn is human governs the morality. If the unborn is not human, then abortion would be morally permissible. If the unborn is human, then killing them because they are unwanted is cruel and barbaric. Also, pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely rare. Most girls/women who become pregnant will become pregnant by their lovers. There is no reason to expect that if they are aborting their child because of other factors (i.e. job, school, etc) that their situation will drastically change in nine months and they would want to have a child then. Even in the case of rape, as I have indicated, this is not a good reason to kill the unborn child (as I have already made the case for).I confess, I have no idea what you were trying to show me with your first link (from religious tolerance). Perhaps you could explain what I'm supposed to see?Keeping an unwanted fetus does not "trade the life" of another fetus because as I told you before, the unwanted fetus has not come into existence. There's no life to trade. You are killing the life of a child already in existence for one that may or may not happen. You cannot give rights to potential humans, which is why abortion would be fine if the unborn were not human. Tell me, since life is "passed forward," do you believe that masturbation is mass murder?Also, if wanted children's lives are being lost during unwanted pregnancies, do you think women should become perpetual baby-making machines, so that the fewest possible number of children will live?It is not an exaggeration to say that she could still give birth to a wanted child with her lover. We can't just say that abortion is morally acceptable because her lover may be killed prematurely. Pro is simply being ridiculous now by stating that it is "an exaggeration and untrue" to say that she could have a wanted child with her lover. Pro apparently thinks that keeping an unwanted child will always result in not being able to have a wanted child with her lover. Hopefully you see how ridiculous his position is.The girl/woman who keeps the unwanted child can always gift the child to a loving couple through adoption. This would help her in case of poverty because the adopting parents will pay the medical bills (this is why it's so expensive to adopt). If she feels she can't afford to raise the child, she can give the child to a couple who can afford to raise her.Not everyone needs to agree that life begins at conception. You quoted a biologist. Please find me an embryologist (who is an actual expert in the field) who says we can't know when life begins. I have already quoted two embryologists who wrote the most-used textbook on embryology who disagree with you. Life begins at conception. Here, I'll quote a couple more: "Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."[1] "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."[1] "[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."[2] "Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."[3]"Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."[11]These are from modern teaching texts on the subject of embryology. These people know what they're talking about. Sorry, but I feel we should take their word over yours. Now you're equivocating. The quotation about life being a cycle does not back up your claim that "life is passed forward." We are conceived, we grow into adults, we have children, we die; our children do the same; our children's children do the same. Life is a cycle, it is not "passed forward."The "least harmful path", as he calls it, would not be to save the life of the wanted fetus because in order to do that, the already-conceived unwanted fetus must die. If Pro had his way, we would be killing unwanted unborn humans for another human which may or may not be brought into existence. Most conceptions happen through consensual means and it is unlikely that her situation will drastically change in the next nine months to where she will want to become pregnant.Again, it's irrelevant that there's no consensus as to when life begins. Some people choose not to believe life begins at fertilization because it would mess up their views on abortion. Also, as I have asked already, please show me embryologists who do not believe life begins at fertilization. They are the experts.If we polled the globe, you'd find a bunch of people who still think Pluto is considered a planet. But if you polled all the expert astronomers, you'd probably get 98% or more affirming they know about the updated IAU definition. It was the biggest news in astronomy in years.I did not say the woman will not want to be pregnant again, only that it's unlikely she'll want to become pregnant in the next nine months she would have carried the unwanted child. You are assuming that all pregnancies are from rape, when in fact most pregnancies resulting from rape are rare. Most girls/women who become pregnant get pregnant from their lover in the first place. But again, this "law" does not govern the morality on abortion because if the unborn is human, then it is wrong to kill them for being "unwanted."In fact, your entire argument is ridiculous because you are making the case that we are only valuable if we are wanted. The unborn in the womb is the same child that comes out of the womb. Yet no one would say it is okay to kill a toddler because the mother suddenly doesn't want them anymore. You are also assuming that there's no such thing as adoption. However, if the girl/woman is worried about poverty or any other reason, she can always gift the child to a loving couple for adoption, which is much better than having the child killed. All human life is equally valuable. This goes for the child as well as for the mother. My position that life begins at fertilization is much more consistent than your position that life begins at birth, because birth is an arbitrary event. Some children are born on time, some a few days late, some a week early. Some are born a month or two premature. However, the experts in the field of embryology tell us that life begins at fertilization. Pro has yet to find one expert in the field who has said otherwise.I have sufficiently proven that this "law" does not govern the morality of abortion.[1] Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.[2] Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.[3] William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology, New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14.