Abortion is generally morally wrong.

Before I continue, let me just say it's been a lot of fun and I do look forward to seeing more of your work here on DDO in the future. With that said, and only one round left, let's wrap this up! Burning House Thought ExperimentYou say my answer to your question eluded you: do we save the newborn dog or the newborn human? I'm honestly not sure how I could have represented my stance any more palpably. Both of these two living things would suffer horribly when burning alive; it is, therefore, equally justified to save either one over the other. I'm glad, though, that you answered my follow-up question to this experiment. You said it was "less cruel" to save the newborn human than the zygote. This alone shows that you recognize there is a significant difference between the two when answering moral questions (a fatal contradiction to your second premise). However, you say this is more an act of mercy than a sign of its moral worth. I disagree, and unfortunately for your case, so did you. You yourself said as a reason for your answer "above all, do no harm". "Above all, do no harm"Beautiful moral compass there, Pro, and I completely agree. If we ought to consider anything when determining morally good courses of action, we ought to consider the harm it would cause or prevent. In fact, that's the exact definition of morality I gave, the one you (for some strange reason) have trouble considering valuable in this debate. You say my definition of morality is "question-begging", but with all due respect, it is certainly better than the nothing of a definition you never gave in the past three rounds. You said you had a problem with my definition on the basis that it is question-begging; in other words, because it promotes my case and refutes yours. However, after three rounds of never giving your own definition of morality, you finally gave one that coincides with mine. If we should, indeed, "above all, do no harm" then aborting a zygote is, at the very least, a morally acceptable course of action. It causes no harm to the zygote, and prevents future harm in the mother (see the great many things I listed in my third thought experiment). You have now admitted that avoidance of harm is, at least somewhat, a driving force behind your morality. Therefore, the capacity to experience harm (sentience) is a morally significant property. By your own words' betrayal, your argument falls; premise two has been refuted by the both of us. Comatose Thought ExperimentsYou fail to see the relevancy of my thought experiments, or at least claim to. They are merely to illustrate the same moral principle you yourself conceded: "above all, do no harm". This is why it is not morally acceptable to force someone to endure suffering for the sake of a non-sentient being to become sentient. If that person volunteers to suffer, then fine, but it is morally acceptable to not do so. The Real Issue of PregnancyImpatiently, it seems, you jump from my thought experiments to the real issue at hand: pregnancy. Fair enough; that's what we're here to discuss after all. You ask many questions, though, that you should already know my answers to. Firstly, though, you say "You should be held responsible for those consequences that you knew were not only possible, but the natural order of things, barring extrinsic circumstances (i. e. , contraceptives). "Of course, you have to tag on that "barring contraceptives" bit, because we ought not be held accountable for accidents. Again, though, you defeat yourself. To exclude failed contraceptives in your argument is to say that abortion is "generally" morally acceptable, because more than one-half of all abortions occur from failed contraceptives (not failure to use contraceptives) [1][2]. Shotgun ArgumentationThis term ("shotgun argumentation") refers to when a debater bombards the other with a slew of questions, perhaps so he/she will be unable to answer them all in-depth. I will do my best in this case; however, Pro, you should already know the answers to many of these questions.1. You ask is it okay to kill a child if that child is causing a burden to the mother's finances or career? No, it's not. For one, there are other options: you could put him up for adoption. For two, the child is sentient. You say level of development is not a morally significant difference between a zygote and a child, but I think you'll find you and I have both agreed that it is.2. You then ask when does sentience begin? I'm not sure, and neither are you; but at least we can both agree that sentience is morally significant. However, it is quite evidence that a zygote is not sentient.3. Again you ask when does sentience end (ie, when we sleep)? This is, first and foremost, grossly irrelevant to the debate at hand. However, another purpose of my five thought experiments was to dispel this ridiculous question. I already conceded that the potential for sentience is morally significant as well. It is not morally acceptable to kill a person in their sleep because that person will more than likely wake up, and we know this. However, in order for the zygote to "wake up", it must cause suffering in another human being (an already sentient human being). Above all, Pro, do no harm.4. You then (as a side note) would love to hear my opinion on the fact that some research indicates other animals don't experience pain in the same way humans do. To this I have two things to say. One, your source ("reasonable faith") is biased. Two, the research only shows the animals are less conscious than we are (they do not understand they themselves are existing in a state of pain), not less sentient (they do still feel the pain). ConclusionYou claim I didn't refute the soundness of your argument, but that's okay; even if I didn't, you did (on several points):1. By conceded that avoidance of harm is an aspect of your morality, you concede abortion is not morally wrong (as it avoids more harm than it causes, which is none).2. By excluding all cases of abortion that arose due to failed contraceptives as morally wrong, you admit that abortion is not generally morally wrong (as abortions are generally the result of failed contraceptives). Again, johnnyis, it's been a blast. Thank you for debating this with me, and thank you, members of the audience, for reading. Please consider both of our arguments carefully and vote accordingly. Sources[1] . http://www.guttmacher.org...;(contraceptive use pattern)[2] . http://www.lifenews.com...