Abortion in the embryonic period is not necessarily immoral

Premise 1The question, what is the unborn, is paramount in the topic of abortion because if the unborn is not human then no justification for abortion is necessary, but if the unborn is human then no justification for abortion is sufficient. As I have shown in my first round, the unborn are human beings (in other words, members of the species Homo sapiens). This is true from fertilization, so it includes embryos/zygotes/blastocysts. I am still unclear as to Pro's argument. He says he did not indicate the unborn are human beings, but he has mentioned they are human and have human DNA. So my question is what is the difference between being a human being and being human? Why is it wrong to killer a toddler because it's human, but not to kill an embryo because it's human? As I have already indicated, embryos and skin cells are different. Skin cells are parts of a human being, whereas an embryo is a full, unique human being, developing itself from within. So while skin cells may be human, and embryos may be human, so are toddlers human. Embryos are human in the same way toddlers are, not in the same way skin cells are. My arm is a human arm, but it is not a separate human being like a zygote is. My arm is not human in the sense that it is a separate organism. This also applies to the analogy of the blood. Blood is a part of humans, but blood is not a human being. Blood contains human DNA, but it is only human in the same sense that my arm is human. My arm may be human, but I am a full human being. Zygotes and embryos are full human beings, developing by an internal process to become more developed as human beings. Pro and I were once both embryos, and that embryo was the same fundamental human that we exist as today. Regarding the embryologists, no, of course they would not say human blood wasn't human. But this is irrelevant. Embryologists consistently agree without significant controversy that a new, unique human being exists at fertilization. Premise 2Yes, abortion destroys something that is "human," but it also destroys a unique member of humanity, a full human being, which should be protected for the same reason that I should be protected: we are both human beings and it is prima facie wrong to kill an innocent human being. Pro says that he can grant that abortion destroys a human organism and therefore kills something classified as Homo sapiens, but that's exactly my argument. It is wrong to kill an innocent member of humanity. Simply saying they are "human" as a body part is human is equivocation. Pro is not using the word "human" in the same sense. Equivocation is defined as "the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). " [1] Embryos are not "human" in the same sense that an arm is "human. " An embryo is a living human organism. An arm is a part of a human's body. Premise 3Joyce Arthur is only one voice of many. Pro has given no reason why her definition of "human being" should be accepted. Regarding what Arthur has said, the laws were not only specifically written to protect born human beings. Abortion is illegal in other countries, so obviously they have laws to protect the unborn. Additionally, in our country people often point to the Fourteenth Amendment to "prove" the unborn should not be considered persons, but this argument fails for two reasons: One, the men who wrote the Constitution were men, and they can be wrong. After all, the only reason women and blacks can vote is because an Amendment to the Constitution had to be ratified. Second, the Fourteenth Amendment says one must be born in the United States to be a citizen. Nothing more, nothing less. If it is wrong and illegal to kill illegal immigrants, then there is no reason why the unborn shouldn't also be protected in this country. Regarding Arthur's second point, there are no many major differences between the born and unborn. Being dependent on one for your survival is not a major difference between being dependent on many for your survival. Though it is true that the unborn cannot currently be cared for by another (although artificial womb technology is being developed), consider this scenario:You are at a public swimming pool and you are the last to leave. Before you can exit, you hear a splash from the deep end of the pool. Looking down into the water you see that a two-year-old child has fallen in and is now drowning. This child is now completely dependent on you for its survival. Do you have a responsibility to save that child or are you morally justified in just walking away? Regarding her third point, residing inside the woman's body is also not a major change. If I can move from the living room into my bedroom and remain the same person I was with the same rights, how does an 8" journey down the birth canal suddenly ascribe rights to the previously unborn individual? I have already justified how an embryo is a human being, and Pro even said he can admit that. I fail to see the issue here. As I have stated, if the embryo is a human being, then no justification for abortion is sufficient. I have shown from scientific evidence that the unborn is a human being and from philosophical reasoning why the unborn's right to life should be protected. Pro asserts that if we grant the right to life for children, it doesn't follow that an embryo gets the same right. He has not, however, shown why. Why is it wrong to kill a newborn but not wrong to kill that same newborn when she was an embryo, six months earlier? Argument TwoI have not conceded that abortion is morally permissible in the case of rape, just that in the vast majority of cases the child is there through a consensual act. Only 1% of abortions are done because of rape. [2]Rape is a horrible crime, one that should never be done to anyone. It's a crime in and of itself that most rapists are not punished. I'm even in favor of harsher punishment for rapists. However, why should the child pay with his life for the crimes of his father? The rapist should be punished, not the child. And while some may argue that forcing the women to continue the pregnancy would be "punishment," compounding one act of violence with another (rape compounded with abortion) does not make the pain of the rape go away. Even some abortionists recognize that abortion is not a solution for a rape victim. Abortion doctor Warren Hern has written the following: “Victims of sexual abuse and rape deserve special care. However, the abortion counselor should recognize that the emotional trauma experienced by the rape or incest victim cannot be treated adequately, if at all, in the abortion clinic setting. All rape and incest victims, as well as victims of physical abuse, should be referred for appropriate psychological counseling and support. ” [3]Notice how Pro has not responded to my analogies even though I directly responded to his. They clearly show why one must take responsibility for a child conceived through sex, so I push those analogies into the next round. Pro's final argument is irrelevant. My arguments opposing abortion have nothing to do with the other sufferings in the world, sad as they are. My arguments against abortion are not invalidated whether or not I decide to help with other situations in the world. Pro should respond to my arguments. He has committed the irrelevant conclusion fallacy (and by the way, I do give money to organizations that help feed starving children). I have not ignored the rights of the mother. I believe, as do all pro-lifers, that the unborn's life is just as valuable as any born human's rights. I have shown that embryos have a right to life and deserve protection, and Pro has not refuted this. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.guttmacher.org...[3] Hern, Dr. Warren, Abortion Practice, p. 84