Abortion is Generally Immoral.

Once again I thank Con for taking me up on this debate. As this is the final round, no new arguments should be presented.I have shown why the preborn from fertilization should be considered to be human beings and Con has not offered any proof that they should not. The evidence supporting the humanity of the preborn is overwhelming while it's arbitrary to place humanity at any point other than fertilization. I will address Con's arguments from last round.First, Con offers his own opinion as a definition with nothing to back it up. Not only is my definition of human fact not opinion, but I have offered evidence for that position. Con also offers no reason why his definition is superior over mine.Con claims that while he was once a zygote, embryo, or fetus, he was not yet a human but he offers no evidence to support his claim that humans are non-human until some arbitrary point in their development when they mystically "become human."A caterpillar is not an accurate representation of human development. A human begins life at fertilization and continues to develop until it is born and continues developing. They are stages of development. However, a caterpillar enters a cocoon, undergoes a transformation called metamorphosis, and becomes a butterfly. There is no metamorphosis in human development. They simply develop into a more developed human.Con admits that my citing embryologists was not an appeal to authority, so my evidence stands. Humans are human from fertilization. Additionally, quoting pro-choice philosophers was not an appeal to authority. I was not quoting them to indicate it as proof that we are human from fertilization (the embryologists did that), I was quoting them to indicate that even pro-choice philosophers admit the full humanity of the preborn and do not argue the fact. They use other arguments to support abortion.My example of the doctor operating on the fetus was to show that wanted fetus' are treated as patients. Even though she would have to give consent (and most pro-choicers I have spoken to would say she has a moral obligation to go through with the operation since she has made the choice to keep the child, so she has responsibility to care for it), the fact of the matter is if the preborn child in need of the operation was not a human, there would be no reason to worry about operating on it. Why correct a spinal problem in the womb if she could also just make the choice to have it killed? The fact that you can even correct such a problem in the womb shows that the child is human because the spinal problem in the womb will be the same spinal problem after the child is born.As for the case of double homicide, killing the woman frustrates her desires to carry the child to term. There is no reason to call it a double homicide unless the second homicide is a living human.All of my premises stand. I have shown why the best evidence supports humanity at all stages of development and Con has not given sufficient reason to reject this, especially when the experts in the field have spoken on the issue, and not all of them are pro-life (despite recognizing the humanity of the preborn).As such, I would urge a vote for Pro. Thank you for reading.