Abortion

"you say ending a life isn't a punishment, Purposley ending a life is a punishment to the life you are ending. " This argument relies on several assumptions regarding the nature of that life, which are, for the most part, verifiably not true and you have made no effort to demonstrate otherwise. 'Human life', as defined in a meaningful term rather than a flat biological one, requires the presence of meaningful brain activity, and it is not physically possible for foetuses to have this activity until at least 26 weeks of gestation. In order to demonstrate that I am incorrect you would have had to demonstrate that the phenomenon of 'brain death' isn't or, scientifically, 'shouldn't be' synonymous with actual death, which it is. "if you end the life of a fetus then you are punishing that fetus and that fetus is a human fetus which the main word is Human not Fetus . " The word 'foetus' isn't just there to give people an excuse to kill them, it's there because it is the correct descriptor for what they are. Nobody has ever denied that foetuses are, biologically & genetically, human. It simply isn't relevant; You need to prove that foetuses are PEOPLE, or at least that it is somehow reasonable to accord them rights as though they were (and to *also* demonstrate how those rights could 'override' those of the mother, whilst also addressing why this isn't the case for everyone, in which case the organ theft example I mentioned would have to be legal). "you don't have to be able to think to be alive, there are species all over the world that can't think cause they don't have a brain but they are alive," And could you please point out which, if any, of those species we consider to be people, or to have rights? You will, of course, note that lack of a central nervous system fundamentally and inherently means that no 'individual', from the point of view of something that itself has a point of view, exists at all. Those things are not and physically could not possibly be sentient, let alone sapient. A mould spore does not have 'rights'. "it is alive or it could not Grow and develop and a Human fetus is still a human it doesn't change to a human just because it leaves the womb" No, it doesn't. It changes to a PERSON because its brain develops to the point of functionality. In order to fault this you would have to demonstrate that the fundamental idea behind the phenomenon of 'brain death' is flawed and that the broad medical (& legal) community is simply wrong. At the very least you would need to demonstrate how it could be considered 'reasonable' to state that, rather than the equivalent starting point as opposed to the verifiable end-point of brain-death, it is instead conception when 'human life' begins. Despite the fact that we know that biologically human life which differs genetically (even if 'just' by being haploid) from its progenitor has to exist in order for conception to occur, & your position not accounting for the existence of this 'human life' *at all*. Despite this meaning that 'brain-death' would then have to not be synonymous with 'actual' death, and therefore theoretically allowing for me to shoot you in the head and get away with it so long as someone still has a culture of cells with your DNA. It simply stands to reason that if you are asserting that mere genetic existence, rather than presence of meaningful brain activity, is when 'human life', in a meaningful and specific term, begins that you must remain internally consistent in your assertions and thus be asserting that cessation of genetic existence rather than cessation of meaningful brain activity is when that life ends. You have specifically refused to address any of those points in detail despite multiple prompting for each. I have also noted your inclusion of a 'source' in comments. While this is strictly speaking not part of your argument, & while I thus do not 'need' to address it at all, I will at least humour you with its inclusion. Firstly, 'lifenews. com' is a *very* heavily biased (towards pro-life/anti-abortion) site, so anything put forth by it with regards to its bias must be taken with a grain of salt. The article itself is little more than several dozen one-or-two sentence quotations, taken completely out of context, regarding the status of conception as when 'human life' biologically begins. You will, I hope, note that *I have never stated that this is not the case or argued that it isn't true*; I've stated that it isn't relevant. Conception as the beginning of *MY* life in a distinct, meaningful, and philosophical sense, rather than merely when 'my' genes started existing and began the blind, unthinking work of starting to create 'my' body and the brain that actually constitutes 'me' as a person, is strictly a religious belief. You have merely demonstrated what is already known to be biological fact, you have not actually linked it to your postion on abortion in a meaningful or relevant manner. The fact that conception results in a novel combination of human genes, and that given an 'ideal' environment the cells those genes are present in will tend toward creating a human body which will give rise to a human brain and therefore a person, has never been argued. What I *have* been arguing is that you cannot call the mere fact of novel genetic combination to be considered a 'person', and as has been clearly seen with your refusal to address any one of several relevant points regarding the inconsistency of this belief itself and of how it is applied, demonstrates that your position is not, in fact, internally consistent and is not actually congruent with the reality of the situation. You have refused to address the existence of a (at least technically) novel genetic combination, and thus by your own terms a 'HUMAN LIFE', that is demonstrated by sperm cells and unfertilised eggs. Technically you did address it but you merely asserted 'no, that isn't right' without evidence and without regard for how it is relevant to your position. You have refused to address how your terminology regarding what constitutes a 'HUMAN LIFE' means that according to a consistently applied model of your position it could theoretically be legal, and more than that potentially objectively 'okay' and fine, for me to shoot you, lethally, in the head and keep a culture of your cells alive, as this would not constitue me 'killing' you so long as at least one cell with your DNA remained alive. You have refused to address that your apparent assertion that the foetus has a right to its mothers body, and that this apparent right flatly overrides the pregnant woman's fundamental, inalienable right to her own body, is not at all consistent with how we tend to see and enforce human rights as operating. My example regarding kidnapping random people off the street and stealing their organs to give to sick people who need them *must* be permissible and able to be legal, according to a consistently applied model of your position, else you are asserting that foetuses are a 'special case' merely because you say so, which is an unjustified bare-assertion. Or else you are asserting that pregnant women do not have rights at all, which not only flies in the face of both international law and local law in almost every country on the planet, but is also barbaric, ludicrous and ethically unacceptable. You have refused to address that a large part of your position being entirely based around 'women having to take responsibility for their actions' leaves out that it is simply not reasonable for them to have to 'take responsibility' for having sex, as it is simply not reasonable to assert that consenting to have sex somehow necessarily equates to consent to become pregnant and give birth, with or without use of contraceptives. You also made no differentiation in your argument between when such measures were or weren't used, and expressed incredulity that all people don't always get them for free and magically 'just know' exactly how to use them in all parts of the world at all times. You have also failed to address that this entire segment of your argument fundamentally has *nothing whatsoever* to do with the foetus or its 'life' and *everything* to do with your arrogant, moralising opinion regarding the womans behavior, that women should be *punished* in a degrading, inhumane and potentially life-threatening manner for having had sex. Which again is barbaric and ethically unacceptable. You have *also* refused to address the invariable life-threatening nature of pregnancy, which is the case in *every* instance of pregnancy ever. You did not address that even a late-term abortion is several times safer than even the 'safest' full-term birth and therefore that pregnancy is ALWAYS a health concern sufficient to have good cause to abort, whether or not you personally agree with it. You are also on record as having stated that you would 'only allow for abortion when BOTH the mother and baby are going to die anyway', and have not provided responses to criticisms towards this position. You flatly disregard that refusing to allow pregnant women to attempt to save their own lives when continuing with the pregnancy will result in their deaths is *literally* MURDER by your own definition, given that causing the death of humans through inaction is literally directly counter to your own asserted positions of 1. 'valuing human life' and 2. that refusing to give foetuses access to their 'ideal environment' for growth counts as 'murder'. I. .. . don't think there's really anything else to say. I think that covers everything. I hope that this debate has been enlightening, educating or at least amusing.