Abortion is generally immoral

To start, lets examine the response to the first rebuttal posed in the above :"from what I understand of evolution, the change from species to species is very gradual, so even if the unborn did carry a change that was about to start the change in species, it would still be human because the change wouldn't affect its humanity"While I would still defend the assertion that you can not claim that all offspring are of the same species as the parent, I would concede essentially that whatever right you would attribute to the species of the parent the same right would have to be argued to be for the species of the offspring because even at the divergence point you would have two essentially very close sub-species as KeytarHero correctly notes. Quite frankly, outside of a small group of evolutionary biologists, and even then among that very select group of people, only the ones specifically interested in the taxonomic rankings of that species are likely to be able to tell the difference when you have divergence in sub-species and even they will argue over where and when the exact point of divergence occurred. Thus there is no rational way that anything meaningful can come out of making decisions based on such a very fine speciation splitting. But note clearly here, all that is being conceded is that for all intents and purposes the species of the parent and offspring can be considered to be the same for any discussion of morality or rights. Note there are some theories which actually suggest otherwise, and they were popular for a time and they proposed that species nucleation could be dramatic usually through agents such as endogenous retrovirus which are known to change DNA. This theory, or more correctly hypothesis, branched out all the way even into the science fiction community and hard science fiction Greg Bear explored how a sudden endogenous retrovirus speciation event would effect humanity[1]. Curiously enough, the rights of this new species is one of the focal points of the book and it is a valid question though for another debate. But again, the genes and the other methods of trait inheritance, are that close from parent to offspring that outside of very speculative theories it is not useful to make a moral divide based on this argument, especially in regards to a claim to rights.Here KeytarHero concedes this part of the justification :"DNA are the building blocks of life. [1] While DNA, alone, may not be accurate representation of what a human is, they're a good place to start."noting clearly that DNA can not be used to justify that something is in fact a human and since he did not refute the example I gave of the DNA in solution and defend that was in fact human then that objection stands. The only additional note I will make here is that DNA is not what makes us uniquely human. While it was thought for some time that the DNA code was essentially a blueprint to make a person, it is now known that there are lots of inheritable traits which are not coded into DNA. This new field of epigenetics is fascinating and explores how what we are is not simply limited to what is stored in our DNA[2]. Now, here is where this argument gets a bit more complicated and we see the real significance of the above two issues when KeytarHero reveals his defense of P2 :"Substance View"Consider the following, the blastocyst is part of the stage of the early embryo and contains as part of it, specifically the trophoblast, which eventually becomes the placenta. Now it is obvious that the placenta is not considered a human, that is just considered to be biological waste. It is in fact ignored outside of a very small minority which use it in rituals, often to the point of consuming it which was made infamous when the media publicised that Yoko Ono (wife of John Lennon) ate the placenta of one of her children. Now is she a cannibal? Are all parents murders who do not raise the placenta? It seems hard to assert those as the placenta is expelled to death by the body during childbirth. But before we can even deal with this minor objection we need to know what exactly does the substance view assert.The substance view argues that claims such as right to life are inherent because humans have an intrinsic claim to value because (1) of the sort of thing that they are and (2) that they are always this sort of thing as long as they exist. Now the substance view is the current dominant view of philosophical anthropology in Christian and is almost always one of the first defenses of pro-life advocates, but does KeytarHero provide warrant for the substance view? No, in fact he never even clearly asserts a full definition and thus his justification can not exist. Note defining what the substance is - is not any means trivial and usually takes at least a multi-part definition, while KeytarHero offers only the barest hint at the definition and leaves many things unanswered 1) what is the exact "sort of thing" that is the substance of a human2) does this "sort of thing" really exist as a full and total manifestation from conception3) why can humans simply claim intrinsic value4) why would an intrinsic claim to value possibly justify a complete claim a fundamental right to lifeNow again all KeytarHero does is form a very weak counter argument, refute it and then shift the burden of proof :"Shouldn't all humans be considered persons, even the youngest members of our species? If they should not be considered persons, then you would bear the burden of proof in showing otherwise."Again, this can not be used to justify the resolution. KeytarHero has to fully develop and support the substance view. He can not simply ask a question and assume that the answer is obvious unless refuted. This also can not simply be achieved with an appeal to emotion[3] (i.e., blacks and jews have suffered, we realize this now it is time to protect the unborn from their suffering - not this begs the question). Unless of course the entire argument is going to be shifted to the paradigm where morality can be argued to be an inherent trait of the senses and that people are "broken" who do not see the immorality of abortion. This argument can be made, but again it can not be so trivially asserted.Now I could interject here, as I do not want to make it seem that I can not offer objections either to the substance view (twinning, recombination, and cellular totipotency speak to the early embryo not being a unique sort of thing until a particular stage) or against the assertion that even if something was of value then it can not obviously claim a right to life which naively is ursurps the right of another (what happened to the rights of the mother to not be limited in expression of her life or to not be endangered). I could also raise objection to the claim of unique value of humans.But, and I want to be very clear here, it is not my responsibility to refute the substance view, to refute the claim that inherent value implies absolute right to life when these have just been stated without justification. The burden of proof is 100% on KeytarHero. I would further argue that it is abusive to start this justification in the forth and final round. Note still, there is no justification at all for P3 which I noted in round two and KeytarHero skipped this in round three and without that the argument collapses."If I have value because I'm a human and I'm protected by law from murder and other violations of rights, then why should we not afford these same rights to all humans, including those still developing in the womb?"Well that is the debate now isn't it.In short, the burden of proof can not be carried without justification and none has been provided.[1] http://www.infinityplus.co.uk...[2] http://www.sciencemag.org...[3] http://www.nizkor.org...