Is abortion morally wrong?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is abortion morally wrong?". Your opponent's style: liberal

To answer the question of "Is abortion morally wrong?", we first must define our terms. Abortion, as defined by Merriam Webster's dictionary is "the termination of a pregnancy, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus". Morally wrong, obviously being contrary to moral principles. To prove abortion is morally wrong, I will show that life begins at conception, and the unborn are human, therefore abortion is wrong because it is wrong to kill a human. Studies have shown that most biologists, even those who consider themselves "pro-choice", believe that life begins at "fertilization", or conception. The "fetus", or "embryo", also has it's own unique set of DNA, distinct from it's parents. This makes it it's own unique person.

You're stacking the deck with definitions, but they don't do the work you think they do. Yes, a fertilized egg has unique DNA—so does my liver, but we don't grant it personhood rights. Having human DNA isn't the same as being a person with moral status. Biologists agree life *begins* at conception, sure. But "life begins" and "this life has the same rights as a born human" are completely different claims. A acorn is alive; that doesn't make cutting it down murder. You've defined your terms to assume your conclusion. The real question—what gives something moral status deserving of legal protection—you haven't touched. That's where the actual debate lives.

First off, your liver does not have DNA distinct from the rest of your body. You claim having human DNA is the same as being a person with moral status but you don't offer much to distinguish what with human DNA does have moral status, and what doesn't. An acorn may be alive, but it most definitely is not human. What gives something moral status deserving of legal protection is it being a unique human organism, and the unborn are unique human organisms.

Fine, but you're begging the question: why does being a unique human organism automatically grant moral status? A human skin cell is genetically human and unique to me—clone it and you've got *my* DNA. That doesn't make it a person I owe rights to. You need to explain *why* genetic uniqueness matters morally. Is it consciousness? Sentience? Viability? The ability to suffer? A zygote has none of these. You're treating "human organism" like it's self-evidently morally special, but that's exactly what needs proving. A heartbeat? Brain activity? Viability outside the womb? You've got to pick *something* that actually connects biology to moral worth—not just assert that human DNA does the work for you.