Abortion

While, your definition of life may be from a reputable source, and an accepted definition, there are too many gray areas. For example, a virus can be argued to possess all of those characteristics, so why then, does modern medicine consider them to be non-living. A virus can achieve all of the characteristics of a living thing, simply with a host cell. Why, is something that has THE POTENTIAL to have all the characteristics of life, not considered living? So while the definition you provided may be accepted, for some reason, it seems to not apply to some specimens. On the matter of "Elysia Chlorotica" it is perfectly relevant. First, you failed to notice a very clear, very intentional misprint in my previous argument. "...Elysia chlorotica, a photosynthetic sea slug, belonging to the the same kingdom as humans (animalia) which had several characteristics, including that they were to be heterotrophs. Elysia chlorotica can manufacture its own chlorophyll, giving it the ability to be heterotrophic." You failed to notice that i stated chlorophyll gives Elysia cholrotica the ablility to be HETEROTROPHIC, when in reality, it has the ability to be autotrophic (which is not a characteristic of animalia, though it is categorized as such, thus proving there are too many gray areas in science to adequately define such a broad topic. There is no universal scientific categorization or definition of life, in which everything will fit neatly). I point this out as it calls your scientific credibility into question. I certainly agree that all humans have a right to life, but at what point is a fetus truly human? Is it because the fetus has the potential to be a human? Certainly you wouldn't consider an egg fertilized outside of the body for surrogate implantation a human yet. At what point is it human? When it develops hands and feet? Gorillas have hands and feet, though are not considered human. Is it at the development of the brain? For that cannot be right, gorillas have brains too. The difference between humans and our unique evolutionary ancestry is found in our ability to reason and comprehend like no other species. While the fetus has the potential to develop into a human, it should not yet be considered as such. For I have the potential to be a doctor, however I'm not referred to as "Dr. Ivy" seeing as I am not a doctor. A gorilla is capable of all the potentials you have listed, within your quote are brackets I added in an effort to explain my argument. "...mental acuity, to speak [In their own intraspecies form of communication], to hear, to love, to hate [emotions such as affection and anger are found in several species such as the gorilla], to have emotion [this was never specified, and plenty of non-human species have it], to lust, to desire [they may desire a specific food, much like what we call a craving], to use free will [within the bounds of their species]". If youd like to argue that they are not capable of lust, Lust: "a strong desire for something" ( http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) All of the above happens on an intraspecies scale of course. And within the bounds of their species Again, the difference is in the humans unique ability to reason. If you would like to argue we are human because of our genetics, then you also admit that a fertilized human egg, even one which has been fertilized outside of the uterus, for surrogate implantation is also, by genetics, a human. If you choose to argue the fetus has the ability to reason, then it would reason in favor of itself. If it were to reason in favor of itself, would it not make more sense to stay in the womb until fully developed? As opposed to being born prematurely? And if you choose to argue the fetus has the potential to be able to reason, and so it then must be human, I can argue I have the potential to be a doctor, therefore I must be a doctor. The same argument can even be made for inanimate objects. A boulder has the potential to be a pebble, therefore, by your argument, the boulder is a pebble. If you would like to argue that the womb and umbilical cord are simply a median for the fetus to acquire sustenance, then you further make the fetus appear as a parasite. Let us again look at the definition of parasitism. Parasitism: "A form of symbiosis in which one organism (called parasite) benefits at the expense of another organism usually of different species (called host). The association may also lead to the injury of the host." ( http://www.biology-online.org... ) I stress this definition, a biological definition, as it uses the term "usually" in regard to the species. Now let"s look up the definition of "usually'. Usually: "Commonly encountered, experienced, or observed". ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com... ) If you notice, nowhere in the definition does it say that it "usually" means "always". If you claim the fetus is a separate organism, and does benefit at the expense of the mother (through things like 'turnover') ,and MAY lead to injury of the host, then you agree the fetus is a parasite. The condition of peripartum cardiomyopathy further proves the concept of a fetus being a parasite, as it causes harm to the host, but maintains the host as living, so as it itself could continue to live. If you choose to argue that the fetus is not a parasite, then you surely believe the definition of the word is wrong. And seeing as how your definition of life and my definition of parasitism are from the same site, you must then question the validity of your definition and the site from which it came. There can be no perfect standard that all humans judge morality upon. For example, in several cultures, humans believe being homosexual is a worse "crime" than the killing of another human. They may then decide to kill the homosexual, for being homosexual, though the victim committed no real crime. I for one do believe that killing 25 children is worse than stealing an ice cream cone, however, the child you may have stolen it from, could very well disagree, and cry until he gets another ice cream, yet not care at all about the children that were killed on the news. Do not make the mistake of thinking that this only applies to young children who do not know right from wrong. It can apply to some children as old as 8. My cousin was more upset that i would not play hide-and-seek with him, than he was that children were killed in the Sandy Hook tragedy. My cousin was 8 at the time. The standards of morality vary too greatly from person to person, and instead, morality is judged by the greatest number of people with similar morals. Now I have a question for you. Your exact words were "The only exception is where the mother and fetus will both die" in regards to abortion. If the mother were at risk of dying, however the fetus could be saved, is it any more acceptable to kill the mother and save the fetus? Do you let the mother die, and allow the fetus to die as a result? Or do you save the mother, and allow the fetus to die? If the fetus kills the mother, does it remain innocent? Will you argue it remains innocent as it had no control over its actions? If it had no ability to know what it was doing to kill its mother then is it truly human? An animal lacks the ability to reason as a human, for the way they think is instinctual. Should we not put down a bear if it attacks a human? You may believe the bear to be innocent of harming or killing a human, as it was instinctual and did not truly know it was doing. However if this is your argument, you also strip the fetus or the human qualities you give it. If, however, you argue the fetus did have free will and the ability to reason, you also argue the fetus could have chosen not to harm the mother, and in doing so, lost its 'innocence'. In losing its innocence, do you now claim it would be acceptable to abort the fetus, as it is no longer an innocent human being? Furthermore, should it not be acceptable for a woman to control what grows within or on her own being?