We Can Be Reasonably Confident that Abortion Entails the Killing of a Human Being

Rasputin: “I’m politically pro-life.” What do you mean when you say “politically pro-life?” I think it would be odd for anybody to be against abortion rights if they don’t think abortion entails the killing of a human being. So why in the world do you refer to yourself as “politically pro-life?” Rasputin: “So do you think the 1950s definition of planet was objectively wrong?” I think the 1950’s definition made the most sense based on what we knew then. Recently astronomers learned more about Eris, Ceres and more than 1,000 Tans-Neptunian Objects,[1] and the IAU, a collection of professional astronomers at the Ph.D level held a vigorous debate and then voted on the redefinition of the word “planet,” and Pluto became a “dwarf planet.” While some scientists still disagree about this decision, I feel pretty comfortable with the expertise and size of the group that voted on it. (2,412 astronomers from around the world were part of that assembly debate and vote.)[1] I don’t think the 1950’s definition was objectively wrong. It was just too simplistic, and based on new evidence, was refined to something even more specific. I think the same could theoretically happen with the word “human,” but again that would need to come about because of some new evidence that suggested our current definition is too simplistic. That evidence has not been seen, and as I’ve already shown, the vast majority of embryologists and the sharpest minds the pro-abortion-choice side has to offer all agree that the organism killed in an abortion is of the species homo sapiens sapiens. Rasputin: “Is the assignment of matter into categories merely a matter of convention, or a practice in the discovery of objective truth?” In the case of determining the species membership of an organism procreated by two humans, I think it’s both. I think it falls under the third definition for “convention” in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “a general agreement about basic principles,”[2] but I also think people like me (and most people that say a human is a human,) are attempting to say something that is objectively true. It’s not like when I jokingly say chocolate peanut butter ice cream is the best ice cream ever. That’s my own subjective preference, and there are actually people that enjoy strawberry ice cream better. But when I look at a red ball and say, “that ball is red,” I am trying to communicate something that is objectively true. When I say that generally when two members of the same species reproduce, they produce a new member of the same species, I am trying to communicate an objective truth. Yes, there are a few exceptions to that general rule, but I haven’t seen one shred of good evidence that humans are one of them. Thus, I believe we can be reasonable sure that abortion entails the killing of a human being. Postscript: We are now into round four of this debate. I said in round one that we would have four rounds, and then I accidently created a five-round debate. So let’s continue with arguments and rebuttals in round four, but round five will be closing remarks only. No new arguments. In other words, Rasputin, if you have any evidence or arguments that you’d like to present that you haven’t yet, you must do so in the next round. Sources: 1: http://www.iau.org... 2: http://www.merriam-webster.com...