Abortion

OK the problem I have with your rebuttals is that you failed to go into sufficient details as to why you make such an argument. The reason being is that you mention several different topics that fall within the Abortion issue, but instead of sticking to one topic, you briefly mention several, making it hard to defend or attack your assertions. For example, the first statement you make is that abortion is considered murder. You gave me a defintion of murder, yet you have failed to demonstrate WHY a fetus/baby is human and why it's immoral. If a fetus/baby, is considered human (again we didn't define it) then you have to show that it is murder. If it's not a human, then your whole argument fails. The only argument I can make is to demonstrate that neurological activity doesnt FULLY develop until around the 3rd trimester. It is true that there will be simple neurological brain activity by the 6th week, however, they are very basic firings that do not define as it as a human ability. The article that I provided states that it has the same neurological activity as a patient minutes after death. http://www.nytimes.com...;I take a neurological approach because I believe that humans are ultimately defined by our brains. All other organs are accessory organs mediated for our survival. What makes us, human, and ourselves, is really just our brain. Since CON hasn't rebutted my argument about abortion being permissible before the 3rd trimester, my case still holds. The next topic you go on about is nutrition. To be frank, this argument is ridiculous. I dont see how it relates to abortion and even if it did, I dont know what point youre trying to make with this. The fetus gets its nutrients from the placenta, while the baby, after conception, gets it from the mothers breasts. A placenta is not the same thing as a mother's breasts. They're even located on different areas of the human body. The nutrients aren't even the same. The placenta brings in nutrients and hormones for growth and differentiation of cells. The breasts provide milk for specific development of differentiated cells. If they served the same purpose, then why would women have two different organs providing for the same thing?The third topic, rebutting a brief point I made in R1 (which by the way, isnt the crux of my argument) was about abortion in the case of rape. I don't understand why a fetus, who has no activiy of any kind whatsoever and who isnt born yet, has more rights than the mother, who has been living for several years and has contributed to society. Please elaborate why you think a ball of cells has more rights than a living human being. Even if the fetus does have rights, that doesnt mean that it has the right to violate someone else's rights. So no, I do not think it's selfish. In fact, I think in the case of rape, it's selfish from the fetus standpoint to force the mother carry it to term and then another 18 years. Your burden is to prove to me why an inanimate object's rights is greater than a human being's life.The next paragraph you list on development stages, which I dont understand the point. Just because one develops a leg means that it's human? So all types of mammals are now considered human and should have the same human rights as us, is that what youre suggesting? The only relevant argument, to a small degree, is the formaiton of neurons. While it is true that lots of neurons form, one gotta realize that most of those neurons aren't used at all. It's a form of development where the neurons overdevelop to increase the chances of making the correct connections with other parts of the brain. The ones that aren't used, the failed connections, are degraded over time. It's called the neurotrophic hypothesis. For further information please read the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;While I do realize that you need a subscription to pubmed and most of the people here do not have it, one should realize that you just need to read the abstract to get a basic understanding of the hypothesis. Lastly, you rebut a small point that I made in R1 about the fetus vs baby. While organs do form, they are nonfunctioning in a fetus. It is essentially a prep time before actual use. It's making sure everything works before the irreversible step of conception. Anyways, it doesnt weaken my argument about abortion at all. Before I submit my responses, one should realize that CON has failed to rebut the crux of my issue on abortion. She cherry-picked small, superfiical information that I made about my opinions on abortion, but not on my actual arguments. I hope the readers realizes that ALL my arguments still stands.