Abortion is wrong

Assuming that "moral absolute" means that it is either right or wrong, my thesis is a moral absolute. So, yes, if you can prove that, even under one circumstance, abortion is the morally right thing to do, you beat me. In the medical case that you provided next, this is my response. Think of this. A terrorist gives me a gun and says, "Kill this innocent human. If you kill him, you live and he dies. If you don't kill him, he lives and you die." Now, in this situation, I would say that I would not kill him. I would not kill him because I would be killing an innocent life which is morally wrong. My example brings me back to my main point: a fetus is a human being. Therefore, does not deserve to die, and should not die at the mothers will. "Is this "wrong"? By whose standards?" It is wrong by the moral standard created by the Creator. (If you would like to have a debate on "there is a moral standard," I would love to have that debate.) "Many of us would agree that killing is morally wrong." My bad. I will rephrase that: "Many of us would agree that killing innocent human life is morally wrong." "Now I would urge Pro to please address my question of "what makes you a person?" that I posed in round 2." I did not see any question in round two, but I will answer it now. What makes me human, and not an animal, is that I have a soul that will live on after I die. "My argument will be based on the fact that a fetus is not a person, because although it has human DNA, there just isn't enough of the organism present to be able to undergo the human experience that makes us people." To this I say: we all have different experiences. So, according to him, some of us are more human than others. Also, if there isn't enough organism present, then tall and big people are more human than short and skinny people. Experience does not decided a person's level of humanity. I have a few examples. I newborn that dies a week after birth. Or a paralyzed, blind, deaf person. Are none of these humans? Again, experience does not decide what is human. "What's the difference between a newborn and a fetus? Well, the differences are that the mother has accepted the responsibility of taking that child into this world and raising it." By saying this, he discredits all of his past arguments. I will quote him, "What makes me human is my humanity. What makes me sentient is my personality. What gives me worth/meaning is my interactions with other people, which builds my character. My intelligence separates me from apes, and eye color and fingerprint are not going to be on the list at all. My hobbies, likes and dislikes, errors and achievements, pain and pleasure... These things make me a person." It also discredits the whole experience. Plus, being human should not be dependent on a mother. "Children DON'T RAISE THEMSELVES, so unless the mother makes that commitment, the fetus has no right to compel others to raise it." This debate is not about raising humans, it is about life or death. So what about orphans? By what you are saying, I can infer that you would say that an orphan has no rights. You go onto say that newborns are human because they interact with others. Again, what about the blind, lame, mute, deaf man? Is he not human? Or the one antisocial person? How about a person in a coma? The difference between a fetus and a newborn is not how much it interacts. Oh, and it is known that a fetus can recognize a mother's voice. They also kick. "OK, well your argument back-fired." I don't see it. Finally, onto your last paragraph. "If I did decide that an abortion was in our best interests, and I chose to convince her of that, it would be after undergoing a thorough ethical analysis of the situation in which I decided that the fetus' development and birth could cause more strife than good..." There is not much to say to this. But I would hope that if this situation ever comes up, that during your "ethical analysis," you would realize that it is not up to either of you at that point. Thank you for this debate. I know that I enjoyed it, and I really hope that I convinced you to choose, and preach, life. By the way, Vikings are two, maybe three, times better than the Packers.