Abortion and the Biblical Sixth Commandment

I would like to point something out, that Pro is trying to make it impossible for me to win this debate. He says that the innocence of the unborn should not be debated here, but then uses their alleged lack of innocence to show that killing them is acceptable. Either Pro should allow me to make my case or drop his case for abortion until it's time to debate their personhood. I have already shown why the commandment to not kill only applies to humans. We are forbidden from killing humans in cold blood. We are not forbidden from killing mosquitos or flies, especially since they are not intrinsically valuable (or made in God's image) like we are. Humans are unique among God's creation and as such, the only creatures we are forbidden from killing are humans due to our being made in God's image. I must confess I'm confused by Pro's analogy of the "auto-doc" and how it pertains to our argument at hand. If a woman puts on a helmet to have an abortion willingly, then she is still taking part in killing the unborn child. I fail to see why she would put on a helmet that would kill an unborn child if she intends to keep the unborn child. Additionally, if she did have that helmet on and the unborn child died unintentionally, at worst she would be guilty of manslaughter, which is different from murder. I fail to see the relevance of Pro's analogy. I should point out that when I say "innocent," I mean innocent of committing a crime (especially one deserving of being killed for it). I explained what makes humans unique in round one. Yes, individual human cells contain DNA. But Pro, here, is confusing parts with wholes. An individual human cell is not a human being, and it is not a tragedy when we lose a cell. However, a human being has many parts, cells that work together for the good of the whole organism, an organism that is developing itself from within. It is simply a non sequitur to claim that since shaving is not immoral, then killing an unborn human is also not immoral. The unborn human is a separate, living, whole, human organism. My claim about being made in God's image is not flawed. Remember that we are discussing the Christian Scriptures! Why did God give us the commandment, "you shall not murder"? It's because we are made in God's image, so we are forbidden from killing anyone. In fact, I provided the verse that says humans are created in God's image last round. Pro's assertion that everything God created is in His image is false. I urge him to read the verse I provided himself (if he doesn't have a Bible, he can look it up on-line). [1]It is true that God is not a physical being. When God said "let Us make man in Our image," He most likely did not mean physically, for as Pro noted God is immaterial. God meant that He has given us capacities to be like Him. As CARM mentions, "[being made in God's image] means that we are made in his likeness in that we have some of the same attributes that God has. For example, God is rational (Isaiah 1:18) and so are we. God can love (John 3:16) and so can we. God can hate (Psalm 5:5; 11:5) and so can we. Because we are made in God's image we are able to have compassion, mercy, grace, fellowship, friendship, etc. However, as God is all knowing, we are not. God is ever present, but we are not. So, the image of God in us means that we are like him in some, not all, of his attributes. " [2]So as you can see, it is not true that everything was made in God's image. Only humans, which is also stated in the verse I provided. So no, killing animals is not the same as killing humans, since only humans have been created in God's image. Mentioning floods and other natural disasters is a red herring. When I say that we should be protected, I mean that our lives should be protected from being killed. In the same way there are laws against murder, there should be laws against abortion, laws protecting the most vulnerable members of humanity. Pro's point about the unborn not understanding the laws is pretty stretched. For one thing, infants and toddlers don't understand the law. Following Pro's logic, it should be legal to kill infants and toddlers because they can't understand the laws that protect them. As I stated earlier, Pro cannot mention the unborn's alleged lack of innocence if I cannot mention their state of innocence. They qualify as innocent in the legal sense of the term. Pro also mentions the arbitrariness of "morals. " However, if we can make murder illegal, there is no reason why we can't also make abortion illegal. So whether or not morals are arbitrary is irrelevant. Pro mentions miscarriage, but this argument doesn't follow. Miscarriage is a natural abortion. Miscarriage no more justifies abortion than people dying of natural causes justifies murder. Additionally, Pro's analogy of the person falling down a set of stairs actually proves too much. That would justify murder, if miscarriage would also justify abortion. I find it ironic that Pro mentions prejudice, since the pro-life position is not prejudiced at all. The pro-life position is that every human is valuable and deserving of a right to life. The pro-choice position is prejudiced, in that the unborn are discriminated against due to some arbitrary reason. Pro seems to misunderstand the nature of the unborn. They are not constructed, like a car. They develop from within, like a Polaroid picture. And their development doesn't stop once they are born. Their lower level of development does not justify killing them. Otherwise it would be morally justifiable to kill an infant, which is much less developed than an adult. I already explained why we couldn't kill Vulcans in the previous round, which Pro has not rebutted. I have already shown why being able to understand a law is irrelevant in determining who should be protected by law. Pro's case has fallen apart. Pro did, indeed, mention intelligence as the defining characteristic on what makes someone valuable. However, if he feels he needs to define it further, then let him do so, so that I can respond to it. Otherwise, I have shown why my definition of human/alien value should be accepted and why, under my view, it would be just as wrong to abort a child from an intelligent alien race as it would be to abort a child from our race. Pro stated that intelligence is irrelevant to born people, but that doesn't make it so. If Pro is going to use intelligence, then he must use intelligence all around. To say that we can kill the unborn because they lack intelligence, but we can't kill toddlers even though they lack intelligence is special pleading, and ad hoc reasoning. The unborn are living, human organisms from fertilization. Any reason to support abortion cannot also apply to someone outside the womb, unless you're prepared to say that it should be morally justified to kill those people outside the womb for that very same reason. And I should point out that I have won many debates on abortion using these criteria and pointing out the flaws in pro-choice thinking. Additionally, Pro can't dictate what arguments I can or can't use in this debate, especially if those arguments are relevant to the point at hand. Pro is simply trying to make it impossible for his opposition to win the argument. I look forward to our final round. [1] www. biblegateway. org [2] . http://carm.org...;