Abortion

"My scientific credibility"? Really? If you are prepared to say that then I must point out the reasons why you lacked "scientific credibility." Also please remember neither you nor I have true scientific credibility as neither of us are trained scientists with masters and major degrees from recognized institutions! Thats why we uses sources. 1. You blatantly denied there was any definition of life but i provided a "reputable source" and an "accepted definition." You were wrong in saying "there is no scientific definition of life" So you lacked "scientific credibility" :) 2. You proclaim extraterrestrial life is relevant towards the argument of abortion. I showed that abortion is of this earth and therefore not extraterrestrial which means your argument was irrelevant. Where was your credibility in that statement? 3. You still haven't provided the definition of abortion from the site we communally used (Merriam-Webster dictionary). I called you out on this and you have not provided any response. Why? Because you and I both know it will only hurt your argument because abortion is defined as "Abortion: "a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the DEATH of the fetus." < http://www.merriam-webster.com...... >. You then say "the word death was not necessary" yet the word death IS IN THE DEFINITION OF ABORTION???? Im calling you out on that again. So respond to that or I will only continue to call you out. And I will use this paragraph to argue your initial arguments that there "is no definition of life" again which my source has already shown to blatantly false. Now you say science cant prove life but there is somehow an inalienable right to life that you believe all humans should have? If you remained consistent you would have to say we cannot know that anyone has a right to life because we cannot prove anyone to be alive. You even say this "So you're saying that abortion (the intentional termination of a developing fetus) is violating a right to life, when life cannot be defined". If life cannot be defined then no one has the right to life. But since there obviously is a true right to life, then we must be able to define life in order for those rights to be applied. Your Elysia chlorotica argument is still irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is heterotrophic or autotrophic in determining life. We aren't debating what phylum or kingdom a human (since DNA shows it to be unique human DNA) fetus belongs to. We are debating whether the fetus is alive. So yeah, you are arguing about how science classifies things that are already proven to be alive, and you are NOT arguing how the science proved the Elysia Chlorotica to be alive in the first place. Hence, your arguments are still irrelevant. We aren't debating categorization ]. Please note, by intentionally ignoring your "heterotrophic argument" I was not lacking scientific credibility. I realized what was irrelevant to debating abortion (as i just proved) and intentionally ignored it :) The fetus is human, as scientifically proven by unique human DNA that had never existed before, with the potential to grow in complexity just as a baby is a human with the potential to grow in complexity. Anyone who says the fetus is merely "the potential to be human" is denying the scientific verification of unique human DNA of the fetus from conception, which makes the fetus human. I went on a tangent there so I will narrow it down to two things which human beings have. Do you really think gorillas have free will? So they can form their own religion, worship, form societies with popular elections, choose which pair of pants to wear in the morning based on the pre planned activities for the day? Gorillas do not have free will. If they had free will, the we could condemn gorillas for murder or theft, because they consciously and freely choose to commit a crime. That is absurd to say a gorilla has free will. I should also note a key sign of humanity is self awareness. We realize we are different from gorillas for some reasons I stated earlier such as the ability to unconditionally love and reach a far greater plateau of mental acuity. But gorillas don't know they are merely gorillas and therefore act as subservient to a human race. So gorillas and humans are inherently different. You argue whether a fetus has the ability to reason. Does an hour old baby have the ability reason? Neither can reason but the baby is human being and so too is the fetus. How about a prematurely born baby that should sill be in the womb but is now in an incubator? Does that mean, because the born fetus technically hasn't reached a full 9 months in the womb it is not a human being? No. This is one more argument to prove a human fetus in the womb is a human being. There isn't a magical moment during birth when the fetus becomes a human being. The fetus had to be a human being before birth and therefore was a human being in the womb who survived with help from the mother using the umbilical cord. And if you believe the use of an umbilical cord makes the fetus a parasite, then a birthed baby laying on the doctors table who is not yet cut from the umbilical cord is still parasite and therefore deserves to be killed. Yes the fetus is a separate organism who exists inside the mothers womb but survives by using nutrients from the umbilical cord. But lets switch your argument that a fetus is a parasite on its own head. So then there should be no laws against punching a pregnant woman in the stomach, with her consent, in order to kill a "parasite" within her body. It should also be promoted to become an alcoholic during pregnancy in order to kill a "parasite" within the woman. And then double murder is a joke of a law. By killing as pregnant woman you are only killing one human being (the mother) and then a parasite. If we believe a fetus is merely a parasite that can only cause harm, the abortions should be promoted and rejoiced and required by almost everyone because fetus "cause harm". But abortion is not killing a parasite. Abortion is killing a human baby as shown in this other way.... I believe you and I agree about the laws of non contradiction. Either one thing is or it is not. Our laws are a great example of this. Double murder laws claim that killing a pregnant woman is the same as killing two human people: the mother and the fetus. But abortion laws claim that the killing of the fetus is not the killing of a human person. Which is it? Well since we know the fetus is both alive, and the fetus is uniquely human with the potential to grow into more biological complexity, then we know the fetus is a living human being growing towards complexity. This conclusion supports the Double murder clause, and thus, abortion is wrong. But this is not enough, in my opinion. I now continue with morality. Morality cannot be subjective. Due to the law of non contradiction, either something is or it is not. Either slavery was wrong or it was not. And actually, if your argument that morality depends on a majority rule were true, then social progress itself would be immoral and condemned. In America, in the South, being a plantation owner who would support equality and wages would be immoral because the majority believed slavery to be moral. Therefore, those initial people who rejected slavery in the south were actually being immoral and unjust. Due to social progress towards a greater good, we know morality cannot be subjective. If morality were subjective, then Hitlers genocide of the Jews is just as good as my belief that all humans deserve the right to life. In fact, if you support moral subjectivity, you would have to support the belief of Neo-nazism as being a legitimate moral standard and equally permissible and therefore, their actions would not be able to be condemned because within their own group their standards are majority. Now, you support the inalienable right to life. I very much agree. But if you agree I have the right to life, and then one other person believes I do not have the right life, then what? It contradicts itself. By saying rights, which stem from morality, would be subjective, then I both deserve to live and deserve to die. Because this argument and logic contradicts its own being, we know rights are objective. This is shown when in the declaration of independence, it is so eloquently stated that "we hold these truths to be self evident" meaning that they existed before the legal document that was the Declaration of Independence was formed. This means, of course, that rights exist outside of time and location and personal belief. Furthermore, by sayings truths (meaning inalienable rights such as the right to life) were "endowed", we realize these rights were not created by personal subjective opinions. These rights were discovered and not created, and because these rights were discovered, then they must exist outside of the human subjectivity. Thus, rights are objective. Now, rights are stemmed from morality, and if rights must be objective, then in order to be formed, their initiator must also be objective. This means that morality must be objective in order to have objective rights and since we know laws stem from inalienable rights and protect inalienable rights, then laws must be both objectively conformed with rights and by being so, must also be morally objective. If a law is not morally objective by upholding objective rights, then the law must be changed. Even you said that "Even the United States Government is run on objective morality." However, the government does not always uphold objective morality through equal representation of objective inalienable rights and that is why reforms are made to law. In order to better uphold objective rights that stem from objective morality. I will have to respond to the rest of this in the comments section.