Abortion is generally immoral.

On MoralityTruth doesn't change based on perception. In keeping with the example of the Earth, we could still be completely wrong about the shape of the Earth but that wouldn't change its actual shape. We have much evidence to show us what shape the Earth is so we can now be reasonably confident, since we've seen it, what shape the Earth actually is.We do have empirical evidence for objective morality. People feel guilt over wrong actions. While there are some things which people can disagree on, such as whether or not a little white lie is bad, there are things which anyone would feel bad after committing, such as rape or murder. In fact, if someone can commit a murder and not feel anything, they are labeled a sociopath and put away in a mental institution. We can also see that there have been objective beliefs all throughout history. Looking back at ancient cultures like the Greeks and Egyptians, we can see that even they believed that one should generally live unselfishly, although they might disagree as to whom one should be unselfish toward (e.g. a relative, friend, or stranger).Scientific EvidenceI am glad that Con accepts the scientific evidence of the life and humanity of the preborn of our species. If she contended it, she would be arguing against modern science and even other pro-choice philosophers.However, I still contend that now that the question of the life and humanity has been confirmed, abortion should be considered immoral. If the preborn were not humans, then no reason would be required. If the preborn are human, then no reason would be sufficient.Philosophical ArgumentHere Rogue is arguing some pretty arbitrary definitions for personhood. For example, if having a personality makes you a person, then value would be in degrees. A person with a favorable personality would be more valuable than a person with a mean disposition. This would allow for legal discrimination.How about people that love you? Obviously Rogue would claim that homeless people, or orphans, or widows whose family have all died off should not be considered people. Again, if people loving you were the criterion for personhood, then those who are more loved would be more valuable than those who are less loved, or not loved at all. In Dickens' A Christmas Carol, it would have been morally justifiable for Bob Cratchet to have killed Ebenezer Scrooge rather than continue to work for him.What about affecting people? Preborn humans affect their mothers emotionally, as well as physically once they start kicking. However, again, affecting people is arbitrary. A popular musician would be more valuable than a little old lady who goes to work and barely ekes out a living.How about emotions? Again, more arbitrary criteria. There are some who don't express emotions, and those who do. Those who do express their emotions would be more valuable than those who don't. Someone who cries at a sad movie would be more valuable than one who didn't.Having a life? That would disqualify children. A child doesn't really "have a life" until they turn five years old and go to Kindergarten. But again, those who live a more fulfilling life would be more valuable than those who don't.In point of fact, the pro-life position is the non-discriminatory one, because we believe that all people are valuable, from fertilization to natural death.In reality, "person" is just a legal term that allows for legal discrimination of a group of humans. Blacks were once considered subhuman, only considered 2/5ths of a person for voting purposes. They were non-human, which allowed white people to sleep at night and mistreat their slaves severely.Pregnancy is actually a very safe thing to undergo. In fact, it's more dangerous to drive a car than it is to undergo pregnancy. [1] You have a 1 in 6,000 chance of dying in a car accident. The chance of a woman dying during a pregnancy is 13 in 100,000. This translates into 1%. A woman would not be risking her life by continuing a pregnancy because the chances that it would kill her are negligible. Besides which, only first trimester abortions are safer than childbirth (and only marginally safer). The risk of dying from abortion greatly increases in the last two trimesters.I agree that carrying a child and giving the child up can be problematic mentally, but why is that more difficult than having your child killed outright? Why would killing the child be an easier decision than giving that child away and giving her a chance at a good life?Now Rogue is showing that she doesn't really understand what a fetus is. A fetus is a preborn human in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. While the child is an embryo, they already look as we do. They are only "a couple of cells" right at the very beginning before any surgical abortions even happen. Abortions that kill a fetus are much, much rarer than abortions that kill an embryo.But again, looking like us doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes valuable, or the "elephant man" should not have been considered human.Here is what is the most important: Preborn humans are living members of our species, humanity. There is no argument you can use to take away its value that also couldn't be applied to a child outside the womb, or that couldn't be used to discriminate against other people outside the womb.In our world, people do have an inherent right to life. The criminal who is killed because he murdered someone has forfeited his own right to life. He is not innocent, like the child in the womb. He is a guilty, convicted murderer.Soldiers and policemen are only allowed to kill in extreme situations. Policemen are not allowed to shoot unless fired upon first (and sometimes not even then), and the military is trained to protect citizens in the case of war.I have already shown how the preborn human is not threatening the life of the mother.Actually, the right to an abortion is not supported by the Constitution. Would you please make an argument from the Constitution that would make preventing abortions unconstitutional?I have already shown that humans have value just by virtue of being human. It is wrong to kill an innocent human, who has committed no crime, certainly not one deserving of death. Simply being a member of humanity makes one valuable. Any other argument to establish value would cause it to come in degrees and would allow us to discriminate against other people outside the womb. Value does not come in degrees. You either have it or you don't, and you don't suddenly receive value at some arbitrary point in gestation or after birth.[1] http://adventure.howstuffworks.com...;