Abortion is wrong

R1. Rebuttals"I think it's wrong to kill people and I think fetuses are people too; they have their own DNA and are forming their own bodily systems."We've established that in the majority of cases, abortions occur within the first trimester. Therefore, it is not the "fetus" that is being aborted, but the zygote or the embryo. A zygote and an embryo are not persons, they are developing cells. In the former case, it is one cell (the zygote), and in the latter case, it is a small collection of cells (the embryo). If a female, for example, has an abortion within the first two weeks of her pregnancy, she is aborting a cell and not a person. Similarly, if a female has an abortion within the seven weeks that come after the zygote-stage (when the cell has subdivided and become an embryo), she is aborting a small collection of cells -- which again -- are not "persons". I outlined the criteria for personhood in R.1, and the zygote and embryo, very clearly, do not fulfil it. "You can say they can't live on their own so they are not people, but neither can people who need insulin, and they're still people. You can say you don't have a right to use someone else's body to live, but by that logic a conjoined twin can kill the other. Etc." This point is sufficiently negated by the fact that people who require insulin treatment have already been born and are thus persons. One cannot compare a zygote or an embryo to a living being who is conscious and sentient. With regard to "having the right to use another person's body to live", the issue (from a scientific perspective) does not concern what "rights" a zygote/embryo/fetus or a female have. Rather, the zygote, embryo and fetus are biologically dependant on the female who is carrying them. Thus, they cannot survive or develop without her. Again, one cannot make comparisons with conjoined twins because, in this scenario, they are both alive. They do not have to live in their mother's womb in order to grow and develop. R.2 Rebuttals"Well the statistics are not really relevant here because we're just talking about right vs. wrong, it doesn't matter how often something occurs to determine if it is right or wrong."Allow me to further explain why the statistics are relevant: it is important to establish whether what is being aborted is classified as a cell, a small collection of subdivided cells, or indeed a fetus. Why is this important? Because it tells us how close to personhood the zygote, embryo, or fetus is. If they are a zygote or an embryo, they are not fetuses. They are therefore not close to personhood. Why does this matter? It matters because in the majority of cases (as the statistics show) it is the zygote or embryo that is aborted. Thus, we are not aborting "persons". "No, removing cells is not wrong, but an embryo is more than cells, just like you."An embryo is not "more than cells". The difference between an embryo and myself is that I am a fully-developed human who can survive independently, whereas an embryo is a group of cells that cannot survive independently. I am a sentient being; an embryo is not."So tell me, what is the difference between you and a zygote? You didn't quite say, you just assumed the premise that embryos are not persons, which is not true."Again, the difference between a zygote and myself is that a.) a zygote is one single cell, and b.) I am an adult human who is fully-developed. Here is one way to demonstrate the difference between a zygote and a human:This is the appearance of a zygote: [3.] https://imgur.com...This is the appearance of a human: [4.] https://imgur.com..."Not being "protected by law" doesn't mean you're not a person; black people were not protected by law back in the nineteenth century, were they not people? The law is not a basis for morality."In stating "black people", you are referring to people, not (a) cells or small collection of developing cells. Thus, this point is a non sequitur. "Newborn babies are not really capable of thought either, but they're still people. " Emphasis on the word "people". Newborn infants are indeed people, because they have been born. They will gradually begin to develop thought, as well. "Some people don't have emotions, and some can't feel physical pain (called Congenital Insensitivity to Pain (CIP)), but they're still people. You say cells are not a life, just a "potential" but if they're not living are they dead? Or just abiotic? Nobody's continued existence is guaranteed; we could all ie tomorrow, doesn't mean we're not people. When people are sleeping, they are not conscious, but they are still people." They are people because as they are "post-birth". They are not (a) cell or small collection of cells. Regardless of their ability or inability to "feel emotion" or "physical pain", they are still sentient beings. I would note that CIP is an extremely rare condition, with only 20 cases ever being reported. [5.] https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...(see frequency).