Abortion takes the life of a distinct, living, whole human being

I appreciate my opponent"s rebuttal, as it will require me to bolster my case in these closing comments. First then, I will respond to the criticism of my choice and use of sources, and then I shall quickly re-state my case. First let it be said that RationalDebatee is correct in saying that I failed to provide a source for my first quotation of the American Medical Association. I apologize. The correct source is found here: http://horatiostorer.net... (second article, 5th paragraph). Documents found on this site follow very closely AMA's long history of opposition to abortion on grounds of the unborn"s humanity. This source was merely to demonstrate such early opposition to abortion, not to reflect the AMA's current views. To address the rebuttals directed at points (a), (b), (c), (d), (g) and (h) generally, the claim is that these sources are both outdated, and that most fall prey to the fallacy of appealing to authority. First then, I used such old sources to demonstrate that these facts have been around since before most of us were born. The idea that life begins at conception is not new, in other words. However, I would be more than happy to provide contemporary sources from academic textbooks: (a.1) "Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual"..A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)." [1] (b.1) "Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the female gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote." [2] (c.1) "[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being." [3] (d.1) "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." [4] As well as popular level sources: (e.1)"Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization."[5] (f.1) "The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual's unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated." [6] Secondly, I find it strange that my opponent would accuse my use of academic sources as appeals to authority, thereby intending to invalidate my case. Indeed, in the very description of the fallacy found on his source cautions against such a misuse of the fallacy: "It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence."[7] And so, I suppose it could be said that I am appealing to authority; I am appealing to trustworthy, academic, legitimate authority. Now specifically to (d), I never claimed that a decision was made in this instance. It merely servers to confirm that numerous experts in relevant fields of study have come to the conclusion that human life begins at conception. Once again, I never said that anything was passed into law. It is exactly what the quote says it is: a report. The contents of the report reflect the views of said experts. No dishonesty, just reporting of fact. Regarding the specific criticism of (e), once again, this is used merely to demonstrate the wide acceptance of the scientific view that human life begins at conception. Further, how is it that RationalDebatee can claim that Dr. Alan Guttmacher "changed his opinion" without proper documentation? Also, how does it follow that if a man has an organization named after him that holds a different position than he did, that his position was false? In response to his points on (g), my case is supported immensely by this quote! Consider the first sentence: "The development of a human being begins with fertilization"" I ask the reader, what kind of organism is identified in this quote? A human being. At what point does this human being begin developing? Fertilization. What then, is present at the point of fertilization? A human. Is this human dead? No. Therefore, a human life begins at fertilization. Also, it is stated by my opponent that "while it does imply that something is living that thing is a zygote not a human being." Hardly! Making a distinction between a zygote and human is a category fallacy[8]. You see, the term "zygote" is not the name of any particular organism: it is a stage of development. In other words, this objection is equivalent to me saying "although my parents imply that something is living in the guest room, that thing is a teen, not a human." You see then, that zygote is merely a stage of development in the same way that teen is a stage of development. Now to his comments on my quote from Dr. Maureen Condic, my opponent misunderstands the nature of this quote. It is stated that "embryos are living human beings 'precisely because they possess the single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of death - the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living cells.'" The emphasis in this quote is on >lifehumanlivinglife< that is lost in the moment of death - the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living cells [such as a corps].' " This is not bad biology, the only thing being stated in this quote that the subject of interest, a human embryo, is alive due to the fact that it can function as a coordinated whole. To respond to my opponent"s last criticism, it seems odd that he would accuse me faulty appeals to authority, and then appeal to authority himself. Perhaps there is a distinction that I am not aware of which would exempt him from this fallacy? And perhaps my opponent is right in that I should not use the word "unanimous" in this instance. Perhaps I shall re-state it in the following: it has been, and continues to be the generally accepted fact in embryology that human life begins at conception. In conclusion then, both old and new sources confirm my position. The unborn is: 1) Distinct in that it is no other human being; it is itself from conception until death just as you and I have been and will be. 2) Living in that it is not dead. 3) Whole in that it is not merely part of some larger whole; it is itself a whole organism known as a human being. Thank you very much for your participation in this debate, it has been a challenging and wonderful first experience. [1] Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2. [2] T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11. [3] Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2. [4] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola M"ller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8. [5] The Biology of Prenatal Develpment, National Geographic, 2006. [6] In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005. [7] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org...