Voluntary Abortion is Immoral - 2nd Attempt

Pro wrote: I am assuming that I will argue this round and the third round? Yes, you argue in rounds 1, 2, and 3. I argue in rounds 2, 3, and 4. Abortion is murder. I don't believe that. Why would you say such a thing? You can't just make that claim without supporting it. You have undertaken to persuade us that abortion is murder. You have the burden of proof. Take this opportunity to educate us. Share your thinking; give us reason to agree with you. When you perform this operation, a human must die. But how do you justify this? A human must die? Does a human die when you perform a tonsillectomy? When you trim your hair? When you wear a condom? When you scratch the end of your nose? 1. Rape: Even if a woman has been raped it does not make it morally acceptable to kill a human. Well, it might make it acceptable to kill the rapist, but I see what you mean. A zygote is neither a person nor a human being. It's the same with embryos and fetuses, but, since you claim that all abortion is murder, let's limit our discussion to zygotes, fertilized eggs. Is there any reason to consider them to be people? Or to consider them to be human beings? You like the "human being" test, while I prefer the "person" test. If you persuade me that zygotes are people, then I might have to concede the debate to you. If you persuade me that they are human beings, then, in my view, there would need to be another step to your proof. Person vs human being: If a baby were born headless, I would have no problem with dropping it in the trash. Once born, it is a human being, but, if it doesn't have a head, there's obviously nobody home, nobody to suffer an injustice, nobody to feel pain or fear, nobody to prefer life to death. Nothing would be gained by keeping that baby alive; nothing would be harmed by killing it. 2. It would get in the way of the mother's way: Well what if a 6 year old began to get in it's mother's way, costed her money, etc. Does it make it morally acceptable to kill the six year old? The same rule applies to the unborn. I grant you that it's wrong to kill six-year-olds. You will grant me, I assume, that there is nothing wrong with killing sperm cells, or unfertilized eggs. This debate is your chance to show us why the PoCs (products of conception, that is, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses) belong in the category with six year old children, and not in the category with the little swimmers bumping against the condom. Please give me any other reasons a mother would perform the terrible operation of abortion. I don't see abortion as terrible. Going thru with a pregnancy can be a lot more terrible. Why do you consider abortion to be terrible? Since I don't consider abortion to be terrible, I think any reason will do. If a couple doesn't want a baby, they aren't obliged to. Any reason will do, unless you can come up with a reason why not. Yes, you've said that it is murder, but you haven't given a reason for that. Killing a puppy would be much more cruel than killing a zygote. Give us some reason to agree with you, Zak. What is it about zygotes that makes you want to defend them by calling them people, or human beings? This is your opportunity to do more than make a bald claim. This is your chance to share your thinking, to win people to your side. Some of the readers may not have a side. Write for them. Win them over. Don't just repeat your claim, but let people know why you feel that way. I assume it's just a matter of religious prejudice, see. Can you disabuse me of that? Can you show people that it's not just a matter of wanting to punish people who get laid? You have one more round in which you can introduce new arguments‒-and you haven't really made an argument yet. You have the burden of proof. Show us why you're right.