Abortion is a mother's right.

In answer to your note, no, the 'unborn entity' is not the point of contention. Whether or not it is a mother's right to have that unborn entity aborted is the issue of contention. Even if it were established that it does indeed fit into the 'human community,' there would still be the issue of whether or not it is the mother's right to remove it from the human community.Now, if you maintain that I am only attacking straw men, then I would be interested to know what that says of your argument, since I addressed every issue you brought up, point by point. I would think, as well, that the biological properties of the 'unborn entity' are highly in question, since in determining the moral worth of something, you cannot approach by a subjective stance, basing your arguments on photo albums and poorly constructed references to facts, built around the slanted words of religious philosophers. Who is it that is setting up those straw men for me to knock over?Regarding your first point, I have established that something that is not even alive is certainly not human, since humans are alive. Now, at the embryonic stage one of your unborn entities is basically identical to the embryos of other animals, even ones that belong to different phyla. If you wish to assign equal moral worth to the embryo of a shark that you do to the embryo of a human, then killing anything is as morally questionable as killing a human.I would like my opponent, and anyone reading this debate, to closely examine the following images, and determine which one you think is deserving of more 'moral worth' than the others. http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...I imagine that unless you are a biologist, you found it difficult to determine which one of those embryos would one day become a member of the 'human community.' In the next round, I shall announce to my opponent, and to the audience, whether or not your guesses were correct.Now, I have yet to see my opponent establish that something not alive is morally equal to you and me. I would not call an unconscious bag of cells morally equal to an independent, conscious, aware human.Regarding the point you make about my statement 'It is typically considered, however, that the process of birth is what brings a person into the human community, not conception,' Do tell us, how is that a semantic mislabelling? That I acknowledge what the average person thinks, and that there may be differences in opinion, by saying "It is typically considered," does not mean that I have mislabelled something. I would like you to explain your words, not just utter them.Ah, another blatant straw man. Well, please explain why it is such. I would say that recognizability has very much to do with moral worth. If something is indistinguishable as human, it need not necessarily be afforded greater moral worth than any other animal. Again, view the images above, and see if you can afford one of them moral superiority over another.You are building your argument for your own win based on a stray 'that'? I regard with incredulity that you would criticize a single misplaced relative pronoun. If you like, I can start asking for points based on every accidental grammar mistake you have made. When the rules reference comprehensability, they are meant to apply to things like 'text-speak' and utter nonsense, not commonplace typographical errors. If semantics is the best argument you can make, you'll have a bad time.Secondly Regarding My Opponent's Photo AlbumYou may have the same DNA that you have had earlier, and you may have derived neural patters, but I seriously doubt there is a single original cell. A person is always changing. Saying that because you have the same DNA now that you did as a nascent lifeform does not afford your nascent self more moral significance than your independent, living self. One might as well claim that a seed is as valuable as a tree, because it has the same DNA as the tree it might one day grow to become. Ever tried building a house out of seeds?I understand that from conception, the budding lifeform in the uterus of your mother was going to become you. However, it was not until around the third trimester that you were even remotely capable of living without living off of your parent. You were unconscious, unaware, and undeveloped. Your embryo was different from that of a cat or an elephant only in that it was feeding off of a human. Your fetus was likewise indistinguishable as human, though by that stage of development it was recognizable only as belonging to Hominoidea, the taxonomic Superfamily of apes. Until the third trimester, you're just a budding from your mother. You may have become the person you are now, but metaphysically speaking, that developing bag of cells only became you.Secondly Regarding My Opponent's SLEDA. Your statement is, I believe, based on either biological ignorance or misunderstanding of my allusion. I will describe the relations in the following analogy sequence:Seed is to tree as embryo is to adult. Oak seed is to oak tree as human embryo is to adult human.B. (Next round)C. (Next round)D. That much, about an individual with diabetes, is true; they are no less human than an individual without diabetes. However, the issue at hand is not diabetes, it is lack of independent vital functions. The vital functions of someone with such a condition are not nonexistent, or under construction, they are malfunctioning. You suggest that the foundation of a house has the same intrinsic value as the completed house.Secondly Regarding Natural AbortionsI do not contest the natural abortions case because I do not contest that there is nothing morally wrong with a 'natural abortion,' and because I am out of room. I shall expand in next round.