Abortion is generally morally wrong.

In this final round, I will rebut the objections that Con has laid out, reaffirm the case for the pro-life position, and make my closing statements. I hope that in my first appearance here on DDO, I have defended my position well, and I look forward to future interaction. Thank you, Con, for a rousing go-round, and I'm eager to debate further on this matter another time.Your confidence, bared so brazenly, is a little misplaced, I think. I don't understand your response on the human vs. dog scenario; do we save the baby or the pup? As well, it is perfectly consistent with my entire line of argumentation to respond by saving the newborn child. I ceded that sentience is a sufficient condition for moral worth, and I see that, all other things being equal, saving the infant would be more feasible; above all, do no harm. However, as opposed to the abortion debate, here the issue of current sentience is a matter of mercy, not of moral value. It is less cruel to save the newborn rather than allow it to perish in flames. This does not speak to the moral value of the zygote, and it does not logically follow from this example that abortion is generally morally neutral—the minimum you must prove to truly oppose the resolve.I take it that you skimmed my rebuttal, or skipped to the end perhaps. I raised several errors in your objection: Your definition of morality was question begging. You confused a sufficient condition of moral worth with a necessary condition of moral worth. You conflated inherent and current capacities. You do not, in fact, deal with any of those errors in your response, but simply dive into some thought experiments—thought experiments that presuppose your arbitrary definition of morality and your relegation of a zygote to non-person (using person to imply a being of moral value). For these thought experiments to have any weight, you must first bear your burden of proof and show that an organism—the zygote—that is currently developing sentience should, as a general rule, have fewer moral rights than it's mother on the basis of this lack of development alone. You have completely failed to do this.As to the question-begging definition, you presuppose that morals are to make sentient creatures happy, which is exactly what you're trying to prove: That current capacity for sentience is a necessary condition for moral value. However you give us no reason to believe that, other than a few faulty analogies that don't cross over to the abortion debate. You state that current capacity for sentience is a necessary, rather than a sufficient condition of moral worth, leaving us with the conclusion that killing a man under anesthesia is no more morally wrong than slapping that mosquito (you missed it, by the way). Now, to deal with these thought experiments. Number one and two are irrelevant to the topic of abortion; they're red herrings that do nothing more than obfuscate the issue at hand: Is sentience a necessary condition of moral value? Three, four, and five strike a little closer to home, but again, as they presuppose that a zygote is not a human person deserving of full moral rights and fully morally valuable, they overstep what little argument you've made. Your analogies are lacking, but rather than point out every discrepancy, I'd rather deal with pregnancy directly. If an adult human has consensual intercourse, protected or not, with another adult human, one of the possible consequences of that action is pregnancy. You should be held responsible for those consequences that you knew were not only possible, but the natural order of things, barring extrinsic circumstances (i.e., contraceptives). If the unborn is, as I have demonstrated repeatedly now, a member of the human community, then the temporary inconvenience that this may pose on the parents is not reason to kill the child; could you kill a newborn baby because it was putting a financial strain on the parents? Or how about because the mother would have to give up her career to continue to take care of the child? If these reasons are not sufficient cause for the murder of a child, then they are not sufficient cause for an abortion, because level of development is not a morally significant difference. Simply because the child will not experience suffering does not mean that it is of less moral worth than the woman.Now, Con, another problem for you: When does sentience begin? And what truly constitutes sentience? And when does sentience end? During sleep? Anesthesia, again? Death? You cannot simply assert that sentience is a morally significant difference without actually telling us what you mean by sentience. As a side note, I'd love to hear your opinion on the fact that some research has shown that many animals may not experience pain in the same way that you and I do (this is, of course, a complete aside, and I am not citing this as immediately relevant to the debate)[1].Just to review the case that I have defended, I have argued the following: It is generally morally wrong to kill a newborn [human] baby. There is no significant moral difference between a newborn human baby and a human zygote. Abortion results in the killing of a human zygote. Therefore, abortion is generally morally wrong. In sum, I see a lot of bluster but not much bite. Con has set out to convince us that the current capacity (or lack thereof) of the zygote is the morally significant difference between it and a newborn baby human. He has failed to demonstrate any such thing; rather he has asserted a mass of confusion, conflating inherent and inborn capacities, giving us question-begging definitions of morality, and merging necessary and sufficient conditions of moral worth. Con has not given us any objections of substance, and as such, my argument and position stand true. From conception, they zygote is a full-fledged member of the human family, with all the rights thereof, making abortion generally morally wrong, and rendering Con's position incorrect. I certainly hope that everyone has had been as intellectually stretched as I have in this debate. I thank my opponent for his grace, wit, and time, and I hope to cross minds with him again sometime in the future. I feel confident that those reading will vote Pro after seeing the insufficiency of Con's argument, and I appreciate the time of anyone who has read through this entire exchange, and I hope that this has challenged you to genuinely seek the truth about the issue of abortion. Again, I ask that you weigh what Con has said carefully, and am confident that you will see that his position is lacking and will subsequently vote Pro. It would be a shame to spend so much time reading and not weigh in yourself!Until next time,Johnny.1: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...