I attended the campus event Wednesday night offering two perspectives on the abortion issue. During the question and answer period, I asked Dr. David Baram, representing the pro-choice side, to point to some morally relevant difference between unborn humans and humans who have already been born, such that we may kill the former but not the latter for the same reasons. Rather than answer my question, he repeated a line he had used throughout the evening: âÄúAbortion is a womanâÄôs decision.âÄù But this commits a logical fallacy known as begging the question âÄî it assumes the very point Baram needed to prove. Clearly, it is not âÄúa womanâÄôs decisionâÄù to murder her toddler; the question at hand is whether the unborn, like the toddler, deserves full moral respect and ought not to be killed for the convenience or benefit of another. BaramâÄôs answer was âÄúno,âÄù but he never offered an argument for this position âÄî not through the entire debate. It is disappointing to see Baram âÄî and, it seemed, the vast majority of his pro-choice debate cheerleaders âÄî relying on such intellectually superficial rhetoric. It is not worthy of academia. Paul Stark University student