Aboriton should remain illegal

Thankyou ConCon's points will be in bold:Including rape? Or does this count as "life of mother" circumstances?Well, if you follow my 3 premises, it would seem as though rape is no excuse for abortion. That is not life of the mother necessarily because there is nothing about a baby concieved via rape that is especially physically unhealthy to the mother. Although it is certainly a tragic thing and something that merits emotional support and care for the mother in such a situation. Umm... Well, with the quote I provided it seems as though biology tells us that my statement that life begins at conception is correct. A zygote is a human being by nature because it is a human cell. But you may ask: How is it different from other human cells? What makes it a human being not part of another?A few things:first off, it has different and unique DNA from father and mother.Second, it is self-directed.Third, it is a complete integrated whole. All of its functions serve to grow, develop and reproduce--not to aid in the growth, development, reproduction, or survival of a greater organism (take the heart for example which clearly is not an organism but an organ)Fourth, it is the only point in human development which is not an arbitrary point to say the human being begins to exist. It is genetically human, and it functions like a complete organism, and there is no point after which there is a clear cut substantial change in the type of organism present. Therefore, these are short points, but they still serve to prove that a zygote is a human being. I'd also add that you didn't do anything to refute my point, all you said was "umm" What do the following questions have in common? They all have somehing extra to them. The heart may stop beating, but the human does not develope a heart until x time. Is the humans' arms and legs torn off? They don't develope arms and legs until x time.Although I have to add that "x time" is quite early on in human development. Even so, these things just serve to prove that since the time of conception the zygote is developing fast and will continue to develop all features of an adult human being. These are not the standards by which we judge human life. "Children" is a strong term. Is a clump of cells a child? What if it is only a clump of cells?We are all clumps of cells my friend...unless you believe in a soul of some sort. But that is an impossible question to answer in the scope of the debate and really irrelevant because if we have souls, zygotes might too, and in this case, a zygote is not merely a cell and neither are you. Taking it from the physical perspective however, we are all, 100% of us, clumps of cells. I don't get why pro-abortion people use this argument. Now, what is the difference between a 5-week-old zygote and a 5-month-old child? A heartbeat. Blood. Thought. Pain. Fingerprints. Everything that makes us human.Really? Are these what makes us human? So if thought makes us human, how much does are neurological capacity have to be in order to count as true "thought"? Maybe 3 year olds don't have enough of this thought. Why are fingerprints essential to human beings? Does someone who gets their hands cut off lose their humanity? Or a heart beat? sure most humans have heart beats, but how is this essential to a complete organism or to a human being, or to life. Many organisms lack hearts, there is nothing essential human-like about hearts, and cells are lives but do not have hearts. Hearts help us survive but are not an essential feature to what it means to be human. All of these features are arbitrary. There is nothing about them which gives us human value. I might as well say something horrible like "mental capacity has to exceed 130 IQ points" or "whiteness is the measure of human development" its all arbitrary and it leads to absurd, monstrous conclusions. 1) It may fall into a vegitated state.2) It does not have parents.3) It will go to an adoption home.4) It may grow up in an abusive home.5) The parents are too poor.6) It may be disabled.7) It might be ill.8) It might be mentally ill.9) They dont want a child.I guess if a child is disabled it does not have value? I personally take offense at the mentally ill comment because I actually have a close relative who is mentally ill and his life is of great value and that comment is just wrong. It doesn't matter if the parents dont want a child, that doesnt give them the right to kill him or her. Those viewing the debate: See how harsh and bigoted the pro-abortion position is? See how it values some people less than others? If zygotes cannot feel pain up until 8 weeks, why not have a law that, until 8 weeks, you can abort? Because the ability to feel pain is not the foundation for the right to life. The rigth to life is based on our human dignity, not our nervous system capactiy. But if you insist, would you be in favor of cutting back abortions after 8 weeks? That would be a big change and something I would support. Although It wouldn't be 100% in my favor, I would be happy to see it,. My points still stand, and con's arguments don't refute mine, but just illustrate what kind of conclusions we must draw if we deny the pro-life argument