Abortion under most circumstances is immoral.

My opponent concedes that all I have to do is show that there are cases of abortion, other than where the mother's life is threatened, which are not immoral.Contrary to my opponent's assertion, I do not have to show that a fetus is not human. It is human because it is produced by a human. There is nothing special about this sort of humanness. It is simply a statement of the species that the organism belongs to. My opponent is trying to promote an emotional equivocation on the word "human" simply denoting a biological classification, and "humanity" in the sense of qualities or characteristics which we value. The crucial moral factor in considering abortion is not that the fetus happens to be human in the trivial sense shared by "human hair" or "human DNA". What is important is whether the fetus has rights superceding those of the woman.Life doesn't begin at conception. Sperm and egg cells are alive. Being alive doesn't mean much. Bacteria are alive and we don't talk of giving them rights. Being alive is not a crucial factor in determining if something is a member of the human community. More importantly, being alive doesn't grant rights, nor does it guarantee that any rights should supercede those of the woman carrying the fetus.The fact that the organism is genetically distinct is not a crucial factor in determining if something is a member of the human community either. If it were, then identical twins would not be members of the human community. More importantly, being genetically distinct doesn't grant rights, nor does it guarantee that any rights should supercede those of the woman carrying the fetus.A fetus is not a member of the human community. It is irrevocably isolated from the community. Its existence is parasitic. More importantly... well, you know the rest now.I have thus shown that my opponent's first premise is false. A fetus is NOT a member of the human community. Anyhow, to avoid equivocation, I will say that a fetus, at least up until the third trimester, is not a fully fledged person. Personhood depends on more than being human and being in a community. A person has a capacity for complex thought, and autonomy. The zygote is a mere ball of cells which has no human features. It is in essence no different to a collection of skin cells or a tumour. Obviously this is not a person in any meaningful sense, and to force a woman to commit to surrendering her independence to this ball of cells would be absurd. There is nothing special about genetic distinctness, which is all that separates it from a sperm or egg cell, or any other human cell or group of cells.Potential cannot be the factor which determines the rights of a zygote or fetus. For every egg cell has the potential to be impregnated and develop into a person, yet it is not a moral horror that egg cells are aborted monthly.Let us imagine a wizard curses you by implanting within you an acorn. This acorn will magically develop into a child (which in many cases will be delivered by caesarian). Plainly it is not immoral to surgically remove the acorn. There should be no difference in the case of a woman who is raped. A zygote is no more a child than an acorn.In the case of rape, it would be inhumane to force a woman to undergo forty weeks of pregnancy, childbirth, and then possibly childcare of the child of her rapist (which would most likely be a source of trauma for her) or giving up her baby for adoption (which may well be just as traumatic) for the sake of a ball of cells. There is nothing magic about a sperm cell entering an egg cell which should commit a woman to having to carry it to term. It makes no sense to make a raped woman commit to giving up her independent life unwillingly for a zygote. Why should her body be used against her will to carry a ball of cells? Plainly a zygote, sans consciousness or ability to feel pain, is not a person, and should not be afforded rights superceding those of the woman. I don't think the case changes if the sexual act is not forced. There is still no reason why the acorn or zygote should have rights superceding those of the woman.Personhood should not be granted before the third trimester, when the fetus at last has the capacity for consciousness, can feel pain, and has some degree of autonomy (so it can survive outside the woman). Now, even when we grant the fetus at some stage the status of personhood, it does not mean that the fetus' rights automatically supercede those of the woman. JJ Thomson presents the violinist argument: "You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."[1]With this analogy, Thomson shows that personhood (and the rights that entail) does not grant the right to use the body of another. By unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life, you merely deprive him of the use of your body, something to which he has no innate right. For the same reason, carrying a child is a kindness not an obligation. The fetus does not have an innate right to use the woman's body, and a woman is entitled to deprive a fetus of that use.If you accept either the violinist argument or my argument that personhood is not realised at conception, then the resolution is defeated.I will end with more cases where abortion is definitely preferable:In the case that a preteen child has been raped by her father. It would be monstrous to expect her to endure such a pregnancy and deliver the child. We should be seeking foremost to minimize her trauma in that situation.During a famine. The child would almost certainly die unpleasantly of starvation. If there were a chance for abortion, it would save the needless suffering of a sentient child.In overpopulated countries, to very poor families. There is a moral duty to keep the population down, plus we would wish to avoid the misery of the extra pressure of another child on an extremely poor family.In the case that an embryo has been identified with the genetic disorder Epidermolysis Bullosa, a condition where the sufferer's skin blisters at any touch. This is an incredibly miserable, painful disease that could be avoided by abortion. There are other genetic disorders you might be able to think of, where abortion would be preferable to a traumatic life. The case where the fetus is terribly deformed to the point that life would be brutish and perhaps short for the child.None of these are cases where the mother's life is threatened. If you agree that abortion is not immoral in at least these cases then you should consider the resolution defeated and vote Con.[1] http://spot.colorado.edu...