Newly revealed natural scientific laws govern the morality of abortion

"Again, all of Con's points fail."Repeatedly saying this will not make it true. My point that if a woman becomes pregnant with her lover, yet does not want it, her situation is not likely to drastically change in the nine months she would be pregnant with the unwanted child remains uncontested and I extend this argument to my final round.Actually, the point of this debate, as per your own resolution, is that this law governs the morality of abortion. I have amply shown that it does not, and you have failed to refute the scientific, biological fact that all unborn children are living human beings from fertilization.Liberty keeps talking about "killing the future child," but there is nothing to kill if the future child has not been conceived. No life is being lost, save the life of the unwanted child which Liberty supports the killing of. He wants the conceived, unwanted child to be killed. Liberty's apparent criteria for humanity is wantedness, but this is ridiculous. A living human is a living human regardless of whether they are wanted or not.If this "law" only deals with what is possible, then it is no law at all. Scientific laws deal with what is actual, what is tangible. Liberty is speaking of philosophy, not physical science.I have already explained why the wanted child is a real living human. Aside from quoting embryologists who say that at fertilization, a new, unique human being is brought into existence, it is simple biological fact. Anything that grows is alive, and living things reproduce after their own kind (dogs have dogs, cats have cats, humans have humans). Liberty is going against science, claiming that a philosophical belief is "scientific fact." You'll notice that Liberty cannot even supply one expert in the field of embryology to back up his claims, even after I have invited him to do so.Now Liberty asserts that since the unwanted is not guaranteed to be born (as many conceptions end in death before birth), it can not be considered a human. However, Liberty also says that she will try over and over to have a wanted child. None of these wanted children are guaranteed to be born. So my Liberty's own argument, he cannot consider even wanted children to be living humans.Also, as I have stated, if she doesn't want a child but becomes pregnant by her lover, her situation is not likely to drastically change in the next nine months to where she will be ready to have a child.Again, Liberty is making the ridiculous claim that the unborn cannot be human because we do not know if it will be born or not. As I argued in a previous round (and Liberty has not responded to), we cannot be human at birth because we don't know if it will get SIDS or not. I extend this argument into my next round, as well, since it remains uncontested.Liberty makes the following assertion: "If the forced fetus is a real living human and is forced into birth, the wanted child would still not be born and would lose the opportunity for life." The "forced" fetus is a real living human being. The potential wanted child is not, because they have not been brought into existence yet. The only life that could potentially be denied life is the unwanted fetus."So until the day of birth, if there is a successful birth, we cannot know for certain that the fetus will be a living human."No, as you have pointedly ignored we can't even be sure the newborn will be a living human since it may get SIDS.Liberty seems to be the only person in all of existence who would argue the unborn zygote/embryo/fetus could be anything other than human. He continues to ignore science that humans reproduce after their own kind, so any unborn human is, in fact, human. The baby who comes out of the womb is the same child who was in the womb five minutes ago, two days ago, three months ago, and nine months ago. It's the same human offspring."The unwanted conception will only have one chance at life. People will not intentionally try over and over for an unwanted child. "Again, under your philosophical law, this is false. Wanted conceptions only have one chance at life because as you keep pointing out, conceptions have a chance of miscarrying before they are born. You are not only advocating the death of an unwanted child, you are advocating the death of all those supposed "wanted" embryos/fetuses, on top of the unwanted one, all because she wants to get a "wanted" one. Whereas those conceptions would not have died had she just kept the unwanted one and given birth to him/her. The reality is that natural spontaneous "abortions" are a fact of life, but they are natural. If the woman's body naturally flushes out a conceptus, or if her body does miscarry, this does not give us the right to take an unborn life willingly. People die of old age, but this does not give us the right to commit murder."The only moral and reasonable thing a person can do is to reject the ideas of the pro life movement."I ask the reader: Which is more moral and reasonable: to kill a child because they are unwanted, or to want to protect children who are unwanted. Liberty believes the former to be the superior moral and reasonable position.The pro-life movement believes that all life is valuable and worthy of protection. Yet Liberty considers this immoral and unreasonable. The pro-life movement says that it would be better to gift an unwanted child to a loving family, who likely can't conceive a child of their own, than to kill the child. Yet Liberty considers this immoral and unreasonable. I ask you, the reader, which of us holds the more immoral and unreasonable viewpoint?Liberty keeps making the fallacy that the unborn are mere "human tissue." This is an erroneous viewpoint scientifically, as I have shown from the experts in the field. I have invited Liberty to show any experts in embryology who state that the unborn are not living humans from fertilization. In fact, the embryologists I quoted from having written the most widely-used college textbooks in the field of embryology. It is obvious that Liberty's evidence is severely lacking, and severely biased.Also, Liberty misrepresents my position. I have not admitted the validity of his philosophical law. I agree that a woman who is pregnant cannot become pregnant again. What I don't agree with is that this justifies abortion. The only life at stake is the unwanted one. The abstract "wanted" child is not alive, has not been conceived, and therefore by keeping the unwanted child no life is being lost."While some people may think Con's ideas are valid, most do not."Again, more baseless claims. Tell me, who does not think my ideas are valid? I will ask once again. Can you find me any experts in the field of embryology who say that life does not begin at fertilization? I daresay that Liberty does not know "most" people, and therefore cannot honestly make this claim.Liberty constantly reverts to "other scientists" because anyone can make claims that life begins at other points to justify their stance on abortion. But the evidence is clear from the experts who know better: human life begins at conception.Liberty's stance is based on conjecture and creating his own "law" which he asserts as fact. I have shown that we are living humans from fertilization (with evidence to support my views). Liberty has nothing to support his claims because they are just that, claims which are not backed up by science or reason. I have successful refuted his resolution. This "law" does not govern the morality of abortion, whether or not we are humans from fertilization does. And as I have amply shown, we are.I look forward to our final round.