Abortion is Murder

Killing with intent is not necessarily murderI don't think Pro has been able to refute this premise of mine. I used the example of killing in self defense and the recent activity of seals breaking into a compound and killing osma bin laden. Both these examples are clearly killing with intent but are not regarded as murder. So unless Pro adheres to some form of no killing under any circumstances pacifism then even Pro adheres to this whether they realize it or not, that killing with intent is not necessarily murder. Pro rewrites premise 2 to say. .. "2) Killing with intent is immoral, murder is such. "No killing with intent is not necessarily immoral and/or murder. Once again unless Pro adheres to a form of non killing pacifism even they acknowledge this. Seeing that Pros premise is said without exception, and we do have grounds for believing in various exceptions, premise 2 is false thus the argument is unsound. Pro asks. .. "The point being that killing with intent is insufficient grounds to establish murder. But isn't that murder? "No, legally speaking, murder is defined as UNLAWFUL killing. This means there is such a thing as killing with intent that is LAWFUL (e. g the killing of osma bin laden) As Wikipedia says. .. "Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being," [1]I only say this for Pros consideration as I said at the start, this debate is what the law SHOULD be in relation to abortion not what the law is or isn't concerning abortion. As I said before killing with intent is insufficient in of its self to establish "murder". Possibility does not equal actuality & Intrinsic moral valuePro says. .. "'Possible' humans are still humans. You have not proven that fetus' are not humans. "I never argued that possible humans are not humans, but I think we need to look at in what context that Pro regards a fetus as human as Pro said. .. "Scientifically and medically the fetus at every stage of development is a human being. DNA, you need to understand that is human DNA and once combined (egg and sperm), at conception,"You will notice that Pros argues something possessing human dna means that thing is human. But this means my sperm is human as it contains human dna. If we grant that something containing human dna deserves such "right to life" then my sperm is has a right to life. This kind of reasoning is untenable. PersonhoodThe problem I think is that Pro has not made a distinction between what is human in the sense of dna/biology and what is human in the sense of personhood. Its certainly not the case that just because something has human dna then that means its is a human person other wise each of my sperm is a human person. Wikipedia makes this point under the heading question of personhood. .. "Establishing the point in time when a zygote/embryo/fetus becomes a "person" is open to debate since the definition of "personhood" is not universally agreed upon. Philosophers have traditionally declared that some characteristic of reason ought to be included in the definition of person. Although "person" is not defined in standard science texts, Biology Online offers this:3, self-conscious being, as distinct from an animal or a thing; a moral agent; a human being; a man, woman, or child. Consider what person stands for; which, I think, is a thinking, intelligent being, that has reason and reflection. (locke)[33]" [2]So with this in mind here are my main points. .. .. .1) Something possessing human dna does not mean its is a human person2) Possible humans are not human persons3) Any moral rights of human personhood do not necessarily mean that a possible human person gets the same rights (eg right to life), as this would be confusing possibility with actuality. I look forward to Pros reply. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...