Scientifically speaking, abortion should not be legal.

I was reluctant to take this debate, because the only other one I've had on this site is also on abortion! I don't want people to think it's my only area of interest, but you made some points I'd like to contend. Expectedly, my first contention is in your definition of life, or personhood, and when laws should be applied to a person. I do not believe whatsoever that genetics is the grounds for determining when life begins. If that was the case, a single human cell, or any bacteria spliced with human DNA would be identified as human life. I am of the opinion that when a growing fetus becomes eligible for the application of protection by law is when that fetus becomes neurologically developed. This is from my last debate, but it essentially gets across everything I want to say, and I don't see the point in rewording it. --- In what ways does a human being differ from other animals? Why is it, by most, considered exceptionally more unethical to kill a living human being as opposed to a living, say, cow? I would assume this bias exists on two levels. Firstly, a human being is of our own species. Every species that wants to rationally continue existing has a genetic predisposition towards saving their own kind, so as not to risk extinction and to properly propagate the genes of their species. While most, even all, humans may have an inherent feeling of this bias, I don't think it fully accounts for the human race's love of itself. I think the matter mostly has to do with distinct sentience. Very little other creatures have traces of the level of sentience that humans do, and those who come close are the epitome of the phrase "so close, yet so far." Raise a cow up to the level of intelligence and development of humans. Disregarding matters of hostility that may arise, if cows had intelligence and civilizations of the stature of humans, along with language and means of communication with each other and ourselves, I'd be willing to bet murdering that creature would merit a punishment analogous to the charge of murder of a human. Of course, no such creature exists, but you can see my point that our compassion is with those of sentience, and hardly anything otherwise, save for small clusters of animal rights activists who are dwarfed by the rest of the apathetic human race. So, compassion and legalities are deduced to apply to the sentient. They do not apply to creatures such as cows, which are not as intelligent or developed as humans. So, then, should the rights of the fetus not lie within its stage of development, making it a more punishable offense the later stage in its life you abort it? Here is where you may object, to say that the fetus, as a life that will develop into a human, has potential for sentience and humanity, and the application of laws to it. This is all so, but any actions taken against the fetus prior to that point, by any standards, do not make those actions immoral or unethical. I find embryology studies compelling, as they show that development of embryos in all species are relatively the same, and all have traces of past evolution in them. http://upload.wikimedia.org...... There is an interesting diagram for you - the relative developments of animal fetuses. Note the exceptional prenatal similarities. It begs the question: where does the difference lay? And we have answered that question: in sentience, and in development. So it does become more unethical to abort the further on in the stage the child is, which is why procedures such as partial birth and late term abortions have been banned. What about prior to those, though? I see no ethical dilemma in abortion, as the development of the fetus is insufficient, and the function of the body systems is greatly impaired. The cerebrum, the part of the brain that makes the most difference in distinction from animals, and in life functioning, is the last part of a fetus to develop. --- Specifically, I'd like to note that I believe the moment the fetus becomes a life is when the fetus' brain starts emitting EEGs - or brain waves - which usually occurs between the 24th and 27th weeks of pregnancy, that is, towards the end of the second trimester. As for your final paragraph, I don't think I'm lost. I'm pretty assured that my line of thinking is the right one, but that's the reason we have these debates! So you, or whoever else, has the opportunity at changing that. As I stand, I don't believe there are any legal or ethical dilemmas in abortions in the first and second trimesters, and I'm content with simply shooting a bush.