There are times both in which abortion should and should not be allowed

My thanks to Pro for his concluding arguments.RebuttalsI must admit that Pro is mostly correct when he said that the majority of my rebuttals from the last round were refuting points he had made in the first round. That is because he introduced almost no new arguments, but instead tried to give analogies that showed that the unborn weren't humans before a certain age. These notions were quickly abused and laid to rest along with the new arguments that were presented.Pro made several final points. PersonIn the previous round I noted the definition of Personhood by Boethius:A person is an individual substance that has a rational nature. [8]Pro questioned what is a rational nature. I believe that I can confidently state that we humans are rational creatures. When we have children, there is every expectation that they too will eventually express a similar rationality. This is not something that happens by accident or randomly, but rather is the normative developmental trajectory of humans. This is because we have a rational nature, unlike trees don't have rational natures; because trees do not naturally express rationality (my apologies to any Ents reading this discussion). I had noted in the previous round that rationality is something that develops from within the organism and not something that is implanted by the mother or some other agent.DNAPro questions my assertion that because the unborn human organisms have human DNA that they are human. He then goes on to mention sperm and ovum, and noting that they die during masturbation or periods.Sperm and eggs are actually haploid cells of the parental organism (mother and father). These each have half the usual number of chromosomes. [9] These are specialized cells designed to join with the counterpart of the opposite sex in order to form a new organism of the same species. Without combining a sperm or an ovum can never grow into an adult of the species. Heck they can never reach the embryonic stage. That is because they are not organisms, but merely specialized cells - like every other tissue or organ cell in your body being specialized. Cells in your body have your DNA. The unborn do not have your DNA they have their own unique DNA. And while every cell of a human organism has DNA, only the zygote cell is an organism unto itself.ConsciousnessIn this counter-argument Pro goes on to assert that the unborn are not human in the moral sense until there it is consciousness, "because it is obvious that babies are conscious, whether or not they are sentient." [10] In fact pro goes on to state that mowing the grass is morally equivalent (or perhaps worse) than killing a human zygote (the most elementary stage of human life).Well first off, when I mow the lawn doesn't actually kill the Kentucky Blue Grass, but merely reduces the biological mass of the plant. An abortion kills the zygote. Thus he is equating harm to a plant over death to a human zygote. I quibble here, but just making note of the non-equivalency as presented.However, actually dealing with his argument. Let's make it stronger than he presented. Let's talk about the cow that eats the grass (which means I don't have to mow it). Now this cow obviously has consciousness. I don't think that is in question. Now I can kill this conscious cow and eat it. Heck the spider that crawls across the floor that I stepped on was also conscious. If I am able to do that then why not a baby? Obviously there must be something about the baby other than consciousness that makes it valuable.This is just hunting for a reason that permits abortion. Yet all of these reasons are reduced to being human AND some other characteristic.Human AND maleHuman AND caucasian (or specifically not black).Human AND not JewishHuman AND consciousSee how good we are at creating reasons that permit us to enslave, dominate and kill some particular group by not recognizing the obvious fact that they are as equally human as the rest of us? Pro's consciousness argument doesn't hold water because it cannot be equally applied to all creatures that possess consciousness.Sometimes Right - Sometimes WrongPro questions why I bothered to fully refute his "Pro-Life" argument stating: "we are both trying to argue that, at least, there are times in which abortion is immoral, or more specifically, should not be allowed" [10]I refuted it because it was faulty logic and he has to show that there are both times that it is and isn't permissible. His reasoning gave no defensible reason not to allow abortion, only an appeal to emotion or possible outcomes. This has nothing to do with rights and intrinsic moral value and is thus null and void as I showed.Lethal Birth DefectsPro claims that I failed to respond to his argument on lethal birth defects. However, I believe that I fully addressed it under "Acts of Mercy" in the previous round. Yet I will address it again as he does not believe that I did so.Pro is essentially arguing that if the unborn will not have a good quality of life we should kill it and that its rights do not matter. So here we assume that rights are REALLY not rights if you're not as well as others. So, the argument is that, if you've had a bad accident or will suffer a brain aneurysm in the next 2 hours, we can just rescind your rights and kill you on the spot.However, this is a slippery slope among other things. Who gets to decide how good of a life is worth living? Is life itself and its meaning a mystery that each of us get for our time we are alive whether long and glorious or short and feeble. It is really playing God. Now none of us like to see someone in pain, and we live in a society with unprecedented means of dealing with pain. However, I contend that the only way to value the inalienable rights that we have is to respect them in every human. We are charged with loving and protecting them, and to be with them even in the short harsh lives that they may live. If you live to a 100, are president, and have grand kids, do you have any greater right to life that the child that may only live an hour outside of its mother's womb? Is this poor child not just as worthy of its mother's gentle caress as you are? I contend that it is hypocritical to argue otherwise.ConclusionPro has failed to substantiate either side of his argument. I've shown that his arguments are based on appeals to emotion, and a denial of rights through discrimination based on size and development of the unborn. What he has presented is neither logically consistent nor reasonable in application. The majority of the arguments made were about outcomes instead of rights. We do not have a right to a particular outcome, but what we do have as human beings are fundamental human rights. The foremost of these rights is the right to life.I have presented a Pro-Life view for the majority of my arguments. This is consistent and grounded in fundamental human rights. Con has never questioned the existence of these fundamental rights. I clearly showed that the unborn are biologically humans. Additionally, I gave sound reasoning as to why humans have a rational nature thus showing them to be persons right from fertilization. As such this argument has been completely substantiated and shows that every human has inalienable rights. This means that nobody has the right to end their life.Finally I countered several arguments from the Pro Choice side at the same time as countering them from the Pro-Life side. This could be done because the arguments presented were not about rights, but rather appeals to emotion and desired outcomes.Thus Pro has, in my opinion, failed to substantiate his argument in any way.My thanks to InsaneSanity for the entertaining debateReferences[9] https://simple.wikipedia.org...[10] http://www.debate.org... Pro - Round 4.