Abortion is morally wrong

CON, I am sorry about the misunderstanding with concerning definitions, this is my first debate on here so I am not yet familiar with how these go. I don't consider you to be hostile, however I do find it rather convenient the definition provided essentially defines human as essentially the age by which the fetus acquires the capacity to feel pain, and you do this prior to actually making your argument as to why the ability to feel pain should be our yardstick for what it means to be human. Nonetheless, it was my mistake, I'll address your arguments in order.My Response to: Criterion 1: Survival outside the womb:You claim that because the baby cannot survive outside of the womb, it therefore is no different than any other organ within the mother's body. However, as I stated in in my opening arguments, an unborn baby is a completely unique and distinct, self-developing organism. It is not merely a part of the mother's body. You say that DNA alone is not enough to justify a human life, however, I clearly argued that it is not DNA alone, but a unique genetic code combined with the fact that the organism is unique, distinct, and self-developing from within. The example given by CON concering kissing and swapping DNA, nor the organ example, meet those combined qualities. So is it viability that makes the unborn baby human? But I ask CON, how could it? How is it that the protection of the womb and the nourishment of the umbilical cord are morally significant? As I also mentioned in my opening arguments, things like shelter, nutrients, and oxygen are environmental needs that are no different than those needed by a fully matured human being. The only difference is the method by which these things are delivered. CON, when addressing PRO's case, tries to declare this point moot because "no one disputes one's status of being human when one is in a different country...". This however, completely misses my point, which was to say that no matter what location a human is, like the fetus, they too are not 'viable' without some sort of external aid from our environment. We too, like a fetus, are not able to live on only from within ourselves, and therefore would render us not viable, so again, CON is arguing for too much here. So, if my arguments succeed in showing that the fetus is not merely a part of the mother, but in fact a distinct, living, growing organism, then both (a) and (b) stating rather ridiculous conclusions, simply would not follow. If CON still does not concede that the fetus is not a part of the mother, I'd point out an odd predicament that CON's view will inevitably lead to. As Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft points out, “if the fetus is a part of the mother, then the parts of the fetus must be parts of the mother. But in that case, every pregnant woman has four eyes and four feet, and half of all pregnant women have penises!” [1] I eagerly invite CON to try to uphold this view. My Resonse to: Criterion 2: Ability to feel painI do not disagree with CON's underlying assumption that causing pain should be avoided when it comes to sentient beings. Causing less pain when possible, in the case of those on death row, is also usually considered morally better than causing more pain. However, where CON fails is in equating the ability to feel said pain to one's humanity. Pointing out that we humanize animals presumably because they feel pain actually works against CON's own argument in that animals also have the ability to feel pain, yet are obviously not human. Therefore it seems intuitively obvious that it is not the ability to feel pain that makes one human. Furthermore, in my opening I made an argument as to why the ability to feel pain, or sentience, is not a sufficient condition to strip a fetus, or anything else for that matter, of its humanity. I offered an example describing a temporarily (and reversibly) comatose person who may not be able to experience pain or anything of the sort, yet killing this person would be morally wrong. One could suffocate this person to death, and they would not feel any pain or experience the event. But does this make it right? It is here in which I think it is appropriate to inform CON of the difference between hurting and harming. You can harm someone/something without hurting it. So even if you aren't causing physical pain to an unborn child when it is aborted, I would strongly argue you are harming it. And like I said, an embryo's immaturity (in that its yet to be completely sentient) is not a sufficient reason to strip it of its human right to life. So it seems to me that CON has to answer why the ability to feel pain is a necessary condition to be considered human when human beings after birth can and in many cases have been in situations where they cannot feel pain. CON also then has to answer why harming someone, in the case of a comatose patient for example, is not morally wrong unless they feel the pain. My Response to: On PRO's caseCON tries to point out that my claim that the unborn are human from conception is "far from the truth" because zygotes are identical to any other cell in the body. CON however failed to address the fact that I stated in my opening arguments that from conception, the zygote has its own genetic code which has already begun directing its growth from within. Cells, in of themselves, do not exhibit this unique behavior. The question I would want to put forward to PRO is, if the zygote is not human, then what is it? Genetically, it has its own unique human DNA which drives its growth and development from conception. These words - zygote, embryo, fetus are really only words to describe the stage of developent of a human being. To claim that a human zygote is not human is like saying a human teenager is not human - its just a teenager. Its simply fallacious. Although I showed why cells are not the same as a zygote, CON tries to show that I will make the ridiculous conclusion that scratching my arm would then be considered genocide. But again, it seems abundantly obvious in this case that a cell is in fact merely a part of a human being. While it may contain the genetic code of the human being, it is not in the process of growing and maturing into a fully functioning human being. Furthermore, as Diane Irving point out, "[the] zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo and is a highly specialized cell." [2] So its simply not true that it is identical to any other cell. Lastly, CON points out that I concede to there being 'justified' abortions in cases where the pregnancy threatens the mother's life. I have, in fact conceded this, but I do want to stress that these exceptions in which I concede to are exceptions that follow the very same principles which allow for exceptions for killing a fully matured human being - in the case mentioned by CON, the principle of self defense. However, even though there are these exceptions, it can still be said that murdering a human being is morally wrong because if the killing of another human being is justified, then by definition, it is not murder. I can therefore hold this position while still holding the position that murdering an unborn child is morally wrong as well. I suppose if I made one mistake in my original contention is was that I should have qualified it by saying "Abortion is morally wrong in most cases". Thank you CON very much for a very stimulating debate and I hope my first stab at debating in this style hasn't been too difficult to work with. I greatly appreciate your participation and your ability to both properly engage with my arguments (rather than dodge them) as well as your professionalism. I hope to debate you again in other topics. SOURCES:1. http://liveactionnews.org...;2. http://www.lifeissues.net...