Abortion and the Biblical Sixth Commandment

I appreciate Con's attempt to understand how I'm trying to conduct this Debate. The problem is, "it's complicated". I would like to tackle just one part of the Overall Abortion Debate at a time, but it's tough to keep the other parts out. Here I'll begin by edit/quoting something I wrote, that didn't need to mention "innocent": "unborn humans don't understand any Laws whatsoever, [so] there is no Objective reason why they should be protected by a Law from those who do understand Laws." That is, with respect to understanding Laws, the unborn are equivalent to animals. We have a variety of Laws regarding humans and animals. Cattle rustling is illegal. Don't arbitrarily shoot your neighbor's pets. Deer can only be killed "in season". Wild Burmese pythons in Florida may be killed on sight (if you can). And so on. We have *pragmatic* reasons for protecting certain animals (chickens) more than others (foxes), but there is no Inherently Objective reason why either should be preferred over the other. Since unborn humans are insignificantly different from ordinary animals --per actual measurable fact, not ethereal things like "potential"-- we can be as pragmatic as we wish about them, also. Which means that by calling them "vulnerable members of humanity", Con was exhibiting prejudice, not objectivity. The U.S. Constitution currently grants humans "personhood" after being born, so it doesn't matter how little intelligence they have, or to what degree they understand Law. That's why talking about intelligence after birth is totally irrelevant to any abortion Debate. The Debate about unborn personhood will cover reasons why/why-not to extend Constitutional protection prior to birth. Next, Con did *not* previously show why the Sixth Commandment only applies to humans, because his "made in God's image" argument is fundamentally flawed --it is *logically* *impossible* for something physical to exist in the "image" of something non-physical, about which the word "image" simply cannot apply! Also, regarding various aspects of God, such as being rational, able to love or hate or have compassion, mercy, grace, fellowship, friendship, etc --*none* of those things are possible for an unborn human. So, logically, they are *not* as similar to God as the average walking human is claimed to be. Perhaps Con wishes to talk about "souls"? By definition of being "immortal", souls must be as non-physical as God, and logically can made *very* similar to God's equally-nonphysical "image". (Another Debate: "Do unborn humans have souls?") Note that non-human intelligent beings could also have souls, claimed to be made in God's image, and they could be exactly as correct about it as humans. So long as no intelligent species confuses the physical with the non-physical, with respect to interpreting that "made in God's image" phrase, we might all be able to get along with each other just fine. Regarding the "brain-scanner and auto-doc", Con apparently missed the part where I specified the pregnant woman entering that system must become very angry (or "hot blooded") in order to activate an abortion procedure. (It could also be the only reason for entering this particular type of auto-doc.) Since the killing is then not "cold blooded", it can't qualify as "murder" per Con's definition (defective, it is!). Next, Con needs to study some "stem cell research", and some "regeneration research". We are fast approaching the point where we can take *any* human cell that has the full complement of DNA, and "activate" it such that it becomes "totipotent", able to grow into a complete human body. Or any part of a human body. Here (replace some dots): ht......ww.topix.com/forum/city/elizabethton-tn/THHP62TT91M8NNL7P What that means, per Con's argument about "potential", is that white blood cells are exactly as equivalent to unborn humans, as unborn humans are equivalent to average walking humans. So imagine someone saying, "Because you place such value on human *potential*, let's dissect you into individual cells, so that all possessing complete human DNA can fulfill their potential to grow into hundreds of billions of separate persons." The preceding is absurd, of course. And so is it absurd to use "potential" to oppose abortion. The entire notion of "right to life" is an *artificial* *construct*. We use it --and anti-murder laws-- to get along with each other better. However, "getting along" always requires at least two cooperating participants. No unborn human is mentally capable of participating! Just like many ordinary wild animals. Which is why they all can be legitimately denied a "right to life", and why there is no reason to illegalize abortion. Next, Con is failing to understand that humans are part of nature, and that since both nature and humans kill, miscarriages are indeed ethically equivalent to abortions. Also, the fall-down-stairs analogy was presented to point out a "who decides" Question about "potential", which Con ignored. Next, quoting Con: "the commandment to not kill only applies to humans" and Con also claims to be non-prejudiced. Yet that first quote is *exactly* why, in my original post, I showed how abortion opponents can be prejudiced against, say, Klingons, just because they are *not* human. Con used a completely different argument to *pretend* to have no prejudice against Vulcans (who are described as being so human-like they can interbreed with us). Sorry, Con, but there is no reason to think that God would prefer any of the three species over the others (assuming all actually existed). And since I have no interest in killing Vulcans, why would I want to refute any rationale you might provide, for not killing Vulcans? Con apparently doesn't understand molecular biology, which is almost as much *mechanical* as it is chemical. It can be very accurate to describe many biological events in terms of "machinery". So, an unborn human is indeed a "body under construction". DNA specifies that various cells become specialized tools to accomplish certain things (such as, "become a placenta and obtain a supply of construction materials"). Other cells use those materials to *make* *more* *cells*, and to build bones and fluid conduits (such as for blood) and communication pathways (nerves). The construction process is not doing *anything* outside of its DNA programming. And, per "biomimicry", we've dreamed up equivalent electronic/mechanical material-acquiring self-reproducing "cells" to accomplish larger tasks: ht..../en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_machine Con has told an outright lie. The word "valuable" doesn't appear in this Debate until Con used it, yet Con has now twice claimed I specified "intelligence as the defining characteristic on what makes someone valuable". *That* is the lie. What I originally *proposed* is the notion that the Sixth Commandment might be interpreted as "Thou shalt not kill intelligent beings". The notion of "value" does not apply; the notions of "getting along with each other", and "avoiding interspecies genocide", totally apply. It merely becomes a *logical* *consequence* of that interpretation, that abortions would be acceptable, since no intelligent beings would be killed. And so far Con has not proposed any wording for the Sixth Commandment which would apply to born humans *and* to various equivalent nonhuman beings, who should not be killed, while *also* distinguishing unborn humans from mere nonhuman animals, such that *only* the latter can be freely killed. In closing, this is my first Debate here, and it is possible that I didn't pick the best first topic, since Con wants to introduce other factors, each of which deserves its own space. I only wanted to exclude them because I fully expect to *invalidate* each of those factors in its own space (e.g., see absurdity of "potential", above; there's more!) --therefore they *wouldn't* belong here. There just isn't enough space here to do all those invalidations in this Debate!