Abortion

Pro attempts to refute my third premise: It is morally wrong to kill a human being. Pro states in his opening argument that he disagrees with that fact, "assuming [I] mean in all cases". This leads me to assume that Pro would have exceptions to the rule that killing is morally wrong. I would agree, but I would like to clarify under which circumstances it is morally acceptable to take a human life. I ask Pro whether or not he thinks that the right to life is, in fact, a human right and when it is morally acceptable to infringe it. I posit that it is only morally acceptable to infringe that right if the human being in question is threatening to take any action, by his own volition, that will infringe upon the right to life of another human being. I ask Pro if he finds this acceptable, or if he would provide his own idea for when it is morally acceptable to infringe the right to life, if it is the fact that the right to life is a human right. If the right to life is not a human right, then the Holocaust was morally acceptable, which is absurd. Therefore it is my conclusion that the right to life is a human right.Rebuttals:Point 1) It should be up to the mother whether or not to have her child:"When it comes down to it, it should be the mother's choice whether or not to have her own child."Pro commits an Ipse Dixit fallacy. This statement is not properly backed by logic that proves that this makes abortion morally acceptable; it is simply stated as a truth that I must accept.Pro attempts to give special priviledge to a human being simply because she is the mother of the human being in question, assuming that "have her child" means whether or not to kill it. If my original argument is sound, then the mother does not have the decision of whether or not to kill the child the same way my mother does not have the right to decide whether or not to kill me, a 17 year old boy.I would also like to point out that this argument refuses to answer the question of the debate, whether or not abortion is morally acceptable. This point is simply a statement with a premise that assumes that it is morally acceptable to kill a fetus. If Pro is attempting to use this point to prove that abortion is morally acceptable, then Pro is committing a Begging the Question fallacy. In other words, whether or not it should be up to the mother to have her child or not will depend on whether or not abortion is morally acceptable. This is akin to me saying for one of my points, "It should not be up to the mother to decide whether or not to have her child." It does not help to prove the topic of this debate.Point 2) Abortion of another woman's fetus will not affect you:I agree with Pro, it will not. However that is not the question put forth in this debate, as stated in my first round: "I will be arguing that abortion is immoral in this debate.""Because I can tell you that it's going to impact the woman infinitely more if she is forced to have her child."Pro states that due to the impact on a woman's life that having a child has, it is morally acceptable to kill the child. This is false as long as my third premise is true. Pro and I are currently discussing the exceptions to the rule that it is morally wrong to kill a human being, however, I think it safe to say that it is wrong to kill a human being even if that human will impacting your life in negative ways. Keep in mind that a woman has the option to put the child in question up for adoption, thereby limiting the "impact" on the mother."A woman should not be forced to have a child by someone who will not be affected by this decision either way."Whether or not it affects me has nothing to do with the inherent morality of the act. The Holocaust did not affect me either, but we can both agree that the Holocaust is morally unacceptable. Therefore, Pro's argument that it does not affect me is not sound in any way as an argument by itself, or as its relation to the topic of this debate.Point 3) Population control:"If you do not agree with my previous points, then I will put one out based solely on the practicality of abortion."Pro states an argument in the medium of an argument on the morality of abortion that has to do with how practical it is. This is not what the focus of the argument is. If Pro wishes to use this point as an argument for why abortion is morally acceptable, then:Pro states that population control is a reason for why abortion is morally acceptable. If I may subject this argument to a Reductio ad Absurdum, if something is morally acceptable insofar as it controls the population of the human race, then Hitler's genocide of the Jews in Nazi Germany was morally acceptable because it controlled the population of the human race, which is absurd. Therefore, whether or not an action controls the population has no effect on the action's inherent morality.In simpler words, If abortion is right because it controls the population, then it is just as right to kill off any human being, because that, too, controls population. In fact, killing of any kind controls population. Pro's point that population control is a reason for why it is morally acceptable to kill is not sound.A quick note: all of this is assuming that my Premise 2 is true, that a fetus is a human being. In order for my refuttations of Pro's points to be moot, Pro must correctly refute Premise 2 of my argument. Pro and I are currently debating the truth to my third premise: it is morally wrong to kill a human being.