On balance, abortion is immoral

As explained in the comments, my opponent unfortunately missed the deadline for posting his argument. But as I wish to continue the debate, I have allowed him to post his round 2 arguments in the comments. Here is the link: http://pastebin.com...I will now refute Con's arguments.RapeMy opponent argues that abortion is justified in cases of rape in order to prevent the woman from suffering the pregnancy.Nobody denies that having to carry the child of your rapist will be probably be mentally unsettling, but in order for this to be shown to be a justification for abortion it must be demonstrated that this is a less preferable event than the killing of the foetus.In cases of rape, we have two beings whose welfare we are obliged to recognise. Between having an abortion and not having an abortion, the results are:1. Someone will undergo nine months of unwanted pregnancy2. Someone will be killedThe latter is evidently a worse consequence, at least on a utilitarian basis. If someone is killed then they have their whole future life eliminated whereas undergoing nine months of unwanted pregnancy is a temporary period of physical discomfort.So in this case, any suffering of the mother is the lesser of the two evils when compared with the killing of the foetus. Hence abortion isn't justified in cases of rape.Con's second point is that a "rape-child" (for want of a better phrase) would suffer if it is born. Yet even if we do know for certain that the child's life will be made miserable because of its parentage (which we definitely do not), the proposition that we are justified in killing 'rape children' to prevent them from suffering has absurd conclusions, namely that we would be morally and legally obliged to kill anyone if we perceived that their life would contain suffering. Moreover, the fact that the majority of rape children are living ordinary lives and are not suicidal is testament to the fact that they prefer the chance to live their life as opposed to being killed in order to spare them potential suffering.Human genepoolThis argument is an apt reminder of the eugenicist roots of the pro-abortion movement. (1)The truth is that if we are justified in aborting people with diseases whilst they are inside the womb, then we are justified in killing them outside the womb, as the aim of removing the disease is achieved irrespective of the location of the diseased person.So the absurd implication of eugenics is that we would be obliged to kill anyone with undesirable genes, as this would improve the genepool. I wouldn't merely be justified to kill someone with cystic fibrosis, I would be obliged to. If I did not walk into a hospital and shoot all the genetically ill patients, then I would be acting immorally.This absurdity shows that we are not justified in killing human beings with the pretence of improving the genepool.Con opines that everyone has the right to be born healthy, but he does not explain how this right supersedes the fundamental right to life. With Con's logic, I could kill an ill person and justify it by proclaiming that everyone has the right to be healthy.ConsciousnessI accept the premise of Con's statement that consciousness is not present in young foetuses, but he does not cogently explain exactly why this affects the justifiability of abortion. So far, saying that a foetus is not conscious is a red herring, as it is not demonstrated as to why this should make abortion any more or less justified.It would seem that lack of consciousness does not permit killing, as there is no reason why killing an unconscious person is anymore justified than killing a conscious person. Whether someone is conscious at present does not affect whether they will go on to live a future life, which is the reason why killing is wrong in the first place (explained in round 2). If I kill an unconscious person, then it is no legally valid defence to claim that the person was unconscious.Therefore, the fact that a young foetus is unconscious does not do anything to justify abortion.Abortion & murderThere are a plethora of flaws in this argument. Firstly, the fact that a foetus is not a fully developed human is irrelevant in regards to whether it is justified to kill it. A teenager is not a fully developed human, yet this does not mean that it is justified to kill teenagers. Consciousness is also irrelevant. Is it justified to kill a teenager in a comatose state? Of course not.Secondly, Con fails to see the clear distinction between a sperm and a foetus. The latter is an actual human being that will go on to live a future life, the former has the potential to form a human being, and as such will not go on to live a future life (the sperm ceases to exist at fertilisation). Hence the killing of a foetus is not permissible, whereas the killing of a sperm is permissible, as the latter is not being denied the opportunity to live a future human life. A sperm does not have a potential future human life, all it has the potential to do is fertilise an egg - nothing more.MoralsCon states that morality is culturally relative and subjective, yet the only evidence he gives of this is that "people have different morality".By this I think my opponent really means is that people have differing moral opinions, but it is a non sequitor that morality is subjective. All this shows is that people have different interpretations of morality, not that morality itself is subjective.For example, people have differing opinions regarding science (such as evolution or aliens), yet it does not follow that science is subjective - only the interpretations are.Furthermore, the assertion that the law shouldn't enforce morality is ridiculous. Virtually all laws do this and are not wrong to do so. For example, murder, theft, incest and torture are all illegal because they are immoral. It would be absurd to claim that the state shouldn't ban torture because it is forcing morality upon people.Black-market abortionsThis argument repeats the common sentiment that banning abortion would cause many women to die from unsafe abortions.Yet there is no evidence that this would actually be the case, from this graph (http://prolifeaction.org...), note how the abortion death rate was declining at a very rapid debate before Roe vs Wade, largely because of medical developments. In the year before Roe vs Wade, only 39 people died from having an abortion. Of course these deaths are still tragic, but they are a tiny number of deaths compared to the millions of foetuses killed by legal abortion. (2)Furthermore, the legality of abortion has no immediate affect on their safety, as the medical director of Planned Parenthood wrote:'Ninety percent of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such;... They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is...Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous because it is being done well by physicians ' (3)Finally, it is not as if women are forced to have abortions (if they do, then the problem to be solved is the fact that they are being coerced) - the vast majority are seeking an abortion out of their own free choice. If they are choosing to have an illegal abortion, which is not 100% safe, and they are aware of the risks, then they have accepted the possibility that they may be harmed if they choose to have an abortion. Con's argument seems to imply that women have no choice in the matter.Therefore, the argument fails because 1) millions more die if abortion is legal and 2) banning abortion wouldn't have a significant effect on women's health.ConclusionSo, to conclude my rebuttals:1. Even if a woman is raped, there is no reason why this should render the killing of a foetus as morally permissible. Being unintendedly pregnany is a lesser evil than being killed.2. If abortion is justified in order to improve the human genepool, the justifications are not logically limited to the unborn. It would be justifiable, even expected, to kill born individuals for eugenic purposes. As this is a morally abhorrent and absurd conclusion, the initial premise (that we can justify killing in order to improve the genepool) must be false.3. The unconsciousness of a foetus is a red herring, as it has not been demonstrated that there is a sound connection between present consciousness and permissibility of killing.4. A sperm is fundamentally different to a foetus, in such a way that killing the former is permissible whereas killing the latter is not. A sperm will not go on to live a future life as a human being, whereas a foetus will go on to live a future life as a human being. As killing is wrong because it eliminates one's future life, it is wrong to kill a foetus but not wrong to kill a sperm.5. It has not been proved that morality is subjective, and even if it was, there is nothing wrong with the government enforcing moral principles (if someone did say that it was wrong to do this, then according to their own logic they are enforcing their own morality on the government!). Pretty much all laws are enforcements of moral principles, so why should it be out of the ordinary to enforce the moral principle that abortion is wrong?6. Evidence demonstrates that it is not likely that there will be a significant increase in female fatalities if abortion was to be banned. Besides, it is the women's own choice to endanger herself so the government should not be obliged to protect her.________________________________________________________________________(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://prolifeaction.org...;(3) M. Calderone, "Illegal abortion as a public health problem," American Journal of Public Health, July 1960, 50 (7): 949