Abortion and the Biblical Sixth Commandment

I have already shown why the unborn's inability to understand laws doesn't mean they shouldn't be protected, which Pro has not refuted. Infants and toddlers don't understand laws, so following Pro's logic infanticide is as morally justifiable as abortion. We have pragmatic reasons for protecting the unborn, as creating more unborn humans ensures that our species will continue. However, whether or not abortion is good or bad for society is irrelevant as to whether it is moral or immoral. For example, why not protect the unborn and just kill the homeless, which are considered to be drains on society? I suspect that the reason we can't just kill the homeless is because they are human. The unborn should be protected for the same reason. I was not exhibiting prejudice when I called the unborn vulnerable members of humanity. I provided evidence to justify my statement and Pro has not refuted it. The Constitution is a man-made document. Ireland currently respects the unborn and doesn't allow abortion. So what makes our Constitution more moral than Ireland's? Additionally, all the Constitution says is that the unborn are not "citizens" of the United States. Where you are born determines what land you're a citizen of. But illegal aliens are protected in our country. We can't just kill them. Being a citizen is irrelevant to whether or not you have a right to life. As illegal aliens are protected from harm, so the unborn should be. My made in God's image argument is not flawed at all. I offered Biblical support for that (and we are, after all, discussing the Bible! ), and logical support for it. "I do not like your argument" does not equal a fundamental flaw. Pro misunderstands my argument. The unborn may not exhibit any of those traits yet, but they have the inherent capacity for it. They just have to develop it first. Pro has not offered any compelling reasons to reject my criteria for personhood. I am not talking about souls, and this is a red herring (though I believe they do possess souls, but that is not within the scope of this debate). So I don't feel a need to respond to this argument as my argument is that the unborn are living human organisms and as such should be protected from harm and death. I really think that Pro's analogy falls apart. There is no reason why a woman would be wearing such a helmet. Additionally, "cold-blooded killing" is a metaphor, but Pro tries to refute it literally. Humans are not cold-blooded. So obviously killing someone in cold blood is not to be taken literally. I have studied stem cell research and regeneration research. In fact, I have intensively studied the abortion issue for ten years now. Pro's assertion that I don't understand these things, or that I don't understand biology are clearly unfounded and an attempt to undermine my argument. Yes, we can take a human cell and clone it. However, these are only "potential" humans, not "actual" humans. Potential humans do not have rights, and we don't have an obligation to turn a potential human into an actual human, especially if it would result in the original human's death (as in the analogy of dissecting someone into individual cells). The unborn are actual humans, and therefore should be protected. I'm not sure Pro fully understands my argument, as my argument does not rely on potentiality but actuality. The unborn are actual humans, therefore they deserve protection we afford any human. The notion of right to life is not an artificial construct. It is also not within the scope of this debate to argue morality (which could take several separate debates in and of itself). The crux of the matter is that if we can say you can't murder a born human, you can also say you can't "murder" (kill without just cause) an unborn human. Pro's assertion about nature is fallacious. In fact, he's making an appeal to nature fallacy. Just because something occurs in nature does not mean it is moral for humans to do. As I mentioned, Pro's analogy of the staircase proves too much. Someone can fall off a staircase and break his neck, but this doesn't justify murder. Nor does the possibility of miscarriage justify abortion. Now Pro is simply taking my words out of context. I didn't mean that "only humans" are protected by the Sixth Commandment, so it would be okay to kill other members of intelligent species. I was saying "only humans" as opposed to animals. The Sixth Commandment does not forbid us for killing animals for food or clothing. It would apply to other intelligent species like Klingons, Vulcans, or Romulans (and since there is a God who created us, these other intelligent species would have even been created in God's image, just like we were). I do, in fact, understand biology. It is simply incorrect to state that humans in the womb are constructed like a car. There is no maching in a woman's womb that creates a body, then attaches two arms, then attaches two legs, attaches a neck and a head, etc. The zygote begins as a single cell (a totipotent cell), that divides into two and directs its development from within until it is ready to survive outside the womb. It develops itself from within, like a Polaroid camera. In fact, it is more correct to say that the zygote's DNA code is "read" like a computer, not constructed like a machine, as Pro asserts. Pro asserts that I told a lie, but in fact he merely misunderstands what I mean. When I say the unborn have "value," that simply means that they are considered valuable enough to have a right to life. Pro said that we should protect other intelligent species, so it seemed that Pro's definition of value is their level of intelligence. And Pro has thus far refused to define what his qualification for human life is. Pro has also not explained why he believes that not getting along with each other, or why interspecies genocide is wrong, in light of the fact that he believes we weren't created in the image of God. I have provided justification for my position. I did not propose a word change to the Sixth Commandment because none is needed. I have made my case in spades. I can appreciate Pro's first debate being on something as controversial as abortion. I believe that was what my first debate was on, as well. But the problem is Pro was expecting a debate that was so narrow that 1) he was trying to make it impossible for me to win, and 2) it couldn't be argued against without introducing other topics. The humanity of the unborn is the most fundamental question to answer in the abortion debate. If the unborn are not human, then it is justifiable to kill them for any reason. If they are human, then a morally justifiable reason is necessary.