Abortion is morally indefensible.

Thank you for your response - a very interesting read!The primary thrust of Pro's argument is that it is wrong to kill an innocent human. I do not disagree. However, I do argue that this idea misses the point. The whole idea of innocence is based on the idea that the subject is innocent of something - it implies punishment. You cannot punish something that cannot know it is being punished. The idea that one should refer to human grubs as human is equally absurd - should we start calling caterpillars butterflies, right from the beginning as well? There is no test (aside from DNA) that would demonstrate a zygote to be comparable to a human. In the early stages of formation embryos (regardless of the terminology, thanks for correcting me though) possess none of our cognition, senses, or anything that one thinks of when talking about living things. It is more morally correct to terminate something with no awareness than to cause suffering in something that is aware of that suffering. This is the reason I brought up the brain-dead patient. It is not only the fact that they stand low chance to recover that makes them candidates for termination, it is also the fact that they are unaware. This is a position that many people hold to be morally correct, and if my opponent wishes to negate their opinions and morality he must show that his own view of morality is superior.I see that Pro has decided to abandon foisting the BoP on me re: proving that the preborn human is not a living human. I think this was wise, as that idea is not necessarily contested and has no bearing on this debate. I ask that readers note that it has been abandoned.C1In Pro's refutation he suggests that receiving medical training causes one to be morally required to save strangers lives whenever they may be imperilled. The existence of the term "good samaritan" shows why this is incorrect. Helping a stranger is a mitzvah - it gives one a karmic boost precisely because it is not required. Beyond this I'm not going to respond to Pro's other points, as they don't serve to advance an argument individually. Ignoring them does not represent concession. I refer back to my first paragraph of this round as further explanation of why my first condition remains valid. I.e., it is more morally correct to terminate something with no awareness than to cause suffering in something that is aware of that suffering.C2In Pro's refutation he suggests that my argument was a straw man. This seems to be a misunderstanding of what constitutes a straw man argument. In order to be a straw man my argument must have misrepresented his position, which it did not. I did slightly misquote him, and I apologize for that error, but the slight change in phrasing does not alter the representation of his position substantially, and therefore my argument still stands. I.e., regardless of whether or not a fetus is substantively human, you cannot murder something that stands less than a 1 in 5 chance of ever having a heartbeat.C3I seem to have touched a nerve in quoting you - I certainly didn't mean to. However, the the multitudes of human cultures and respective mores - as well as this very debate - stand in stark testament to the subjectivity of morality. I believe that killing is morally wrong because it causes suffering, and making the choice to abort does not cause one to suffer. I know that many other people think that killing is wrong for a different reason - a reason that is linked to Christian belief in a human "soul." In religions such as Islam, adherents believe that some murder is even sanctioned by God. If such a fundamental moral issue as murder can differ based on religious beliefs, then my opponent must admit that morality is indeed subjective. To reiterate my previous point - why should someone else's morality apply to a woman who wants to abort an unwanted pregnancy (allowed by her own moral code)? If my opponent wishes to successfully affirm the resolution, he must prove that the moral code of these women is inferior to another, true moral code, and that that code entirely and unflinchingly rules out abortion as a moral possibility. I would note that I am not aware of an established moral code for which this is true, so Pro seems to have his work cut out for him in this department.