Abortion should remain legal.

IntroductionAh, pardon me. I did not notice your rule against challenging definitions before. I would, however, like to ask you to provide a modern and reliable source for your claim that the scientific community has not determined when life begins. This is an important aspect of the debate and it is not acceptable to make this claim without proof.My caseAs dictated by the rules, I will not be presenting any rebuttals in this round. I shall be making only three contentions.1. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a human life2. There is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human life3. This moral obligation is of the highest orderThroughout this debate round, "unborn" may be used to mean an unborn human at any of the three stages of zygote, embryo or fetus.Contention #1 - The unborn is a human lifeThe standard, biology textbook definition of life is 1) the ability to grow and 2) the ability to reproduce.[1] In other words, if something grows and possesses the ability to reproduce at some point in its life cycle (barring some sort of defect), then it is considered by the scientific community to be alive.By this standard, the unborn can be considered to be a life. But what if we use a more advanced definition such as the one below? Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells â€" the basic units of life. Metabolism Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototroism), and chemotaxis. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.[1][2] Once again, the unborn meets all the criteria for life.However, this is somewhat irrelevant. After all, bacteria and blades of grass are also alive, and we feel no moral qualms about killing them. Why, then, is the zygote/embryo/fetus different? Put simply, because it is a human life. By definition, a product of reproduction is of the same kind as its 'parents.'[3] I offer this Merriam-Webster definition of fetus as further proof: "a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born."[4]Contention #2 - There is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human lifeMan is a moral agent, a being with free will whose actions have moral import. Because of our freedom we are bound by duty to act morally or, if you prefer, ethically. Morality may be derived from either philosophy or religion. I shall be making a philosophical case for the moral obligation to preserve human life using Kant's three Formulations of the Imperative. The First Formulation of the Imperative "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals[5]Clearly we would not want the justified taking of innocent life to become a universal law without contradiction. This would result in chaos, bloodshed and (depending on your interpretation of this First Formulation) the extinction of the human race. The Second Formulation of the Imperative "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end." Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals[6] The taking of innocent life violates this Formulation because it disregards and devalues the free will of the victim and sees them as an end in themselves. The Third Formulation of the Imperative "Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends." Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals[7] To explain this Formulation, I quote from an article on deontological ethics by the Seven Pillars Institute for Global Finance and Ethics:Using reasoned judgment we can apply this formula to any maxim and discover whether it is morally permissible under deontological ethics. Let's take, for example, the act of picking flowers from the local park. The flowers are very pretty, and one may want to take some home. Essentially, this requires adopting a maxim that supports doing whatever one wants to do. Using the formula of the universal law (categorical imperative), there are a few irrationalities and contradictions that arise from the adoption of such a maxim as law. If everyone were to do this, there would be no flowers left in the park, and the act contradicts the original motive for picking the flowers. The better option is to go to a shop and order or plant one's own flowers.[8]The taking of innocent life unarguably carries moral implication on far grander and more devastating scale than the picking of flowers.Contention #3 - This moral obligation is of the highest orderAs can be evidenced by the Formulations of the Imperative, ignoring this moral obligation results in greater devastation than the violation of any other moral obligation can (including such hypothetical consequences as the extinction of the human race).Clearly, then, it supersedes any other demands upon our free will.Sources1. http://www2.una.edu...2. http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu...3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...4. http://www.merriam-webster.com...5. http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org...6. Ibid.7. Ibid.8. Ibid.