Abortion

As for your "perfect standard" of morality, you negate to mention i was able to successfully refute this, with statistics and numbers, in my "majority rules" concept. The same "majority rules" concept you attempted, and failed to refute. Let us not forget, science doesn't prove one thing true, it proves all others false. Let's look at the definition of "tragic" Tragic: "causing strong feelings of sadness usually because someone has died in a way that seems very shocking, unfair, etc. ". ( . http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) Would me, stepping on the Zygote in the previous image, cause more sadness to you than a man mercilessly beating a child? It certainly must, as I killed the zygote, but the child is still alive. I do hope you now see the flaw in your sentiment. How could one hold a single celled zygote on the same plateau as a developed, grown, human? I have already shown how, within the bounds of their species, gorillas have (by definition) free will. As they do form hierarchical societies, and do interact and even form opinions of one another, which is clear by seeing the way they interact with each other. They must form premeditated plans, as that is exactly what a plan is. Plan: "a set of actions that have been thought of as a way to do or achieve something" ( . http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) Certainly, a gorilla, by definition, plans how to get its food, or protect its offspring. Just to further my point, Premeditated: "done or made according to a plan : planned in advance". ( . http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) If something has been thought out as a way to achieve something, then certainly, do that thing, according to the plan, in order to achieve the desired outcome. Self-preservation is recognizing harm or danger in one"s environment. In recognizing danger, one knows they are separate from the environment, and the notion that they have personalities (mean, nice, caring, antisocial) suggests they know they are different from one another. Possibly the largest issue with your excerpt from your previous debate, is the use of the Catholic faith as a defense. I say this, as not every person worships the same god, or any god at all. Certainly a religion like (for example Islam) would find no refute to any of their arguments in another religion, as that religion does not apply to them. Next you say "abortion is permissible because two equal innocent lives are at risk". Does this mean that if the mother is at risk, and not the fetus, it is NOT permissible to kill the fetus to save the mother? Should it not be the mothers choice, whether the fetus was at risk or not, to kill the fetus to save her own life? By your sentiment that is wrong, as only one life was at risk, and not both. Again, I ask you to look at the definition of "Tragic". Tragic seems like an awfully opinionated word, what is tragic by your standards, may not be tragic by mine. Therefore, saying anything is more tragic than another, is a strictly personal opinion. You now use Oliver Wendell Holmes' quote. Allow me to show you how this does not apply. Birth: "The emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; the start of life as a physically separate being". ( . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... ) Notice, how even if you wish to argue that the fetus is alive, the definition states "birth" is the start of life "as a physically separate being". This is exponentially important, as through this definition of the word "birth", it is shown the mother and child are not separate beings while in pregnancy. So a much more accurate quote for this argument would be "The right to swing my fist ends where another man's nose begins, save this situation, as the nose is my own, and I can do with it as I will"- angeloivy. Next i will address how declaring something living or non-living IS CLASSIFICATION AND CATEGORIZATION. It is remarkably near sighted to assume the only scientific categories are domain, kingdom, phylum etc. And in saying "you still are only showing how categorization of life in science is fuzzy" you help my argument immensely, as you are agreeing that there are gray areas, and not everything will be categorized neatly. Saying one definition is more appropriate than another, is ridiculous. Definition: "State or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of". ( . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... ) By this definition, of the word "definition" the explanation must be exact. Therefore, if there is MORE THAN ONE DEFINITION, ALL MUST BE CORRECT. I must however, hand it to Con for being the only person I have seen yet to incorporate a "no true Scotsman" fallacy into the definition of a word. Next onto your definition of what makes a person a human. Your exact words are "conceived with free will", so you must surely be using the word in terms of conception, as you believe the moment a zygote is conceived, you believe it to be human. Though you claim that they have the POTENTIAL to achieve free will, so though that argument, a zygote is not a human, because it is not conceived with free will, it only has the potential to achieve free will. At no point did i say the baby knows it is crying for attention. However, it has begun to learn, if it cries, it will get attention. Can you learn calculus in 30 seconds? No. But in 30 seconds, the teacher can give an overview of the course from the syllabus. Thus beginning the learning process of calculus. While the fetus is parasitic, and may not deserve to die, that does not mean it deserves life. This cannot be a "one or the other" argument. It does not deserve to die, however, it does not deserve to live. Deserving: "qualified for or having a claim to reward, assistance, etc. , because of one's actions, qualities, or situation". ( . http://dictionary.reference.com... ) The fetus has done nothing to deserve either, then neither argument can be used. The fetus deserves neither life nor death. I must now also ask, as you say "rights extend beyond laws", so should a man, who kills another be put to death? Certainly you can"t believe so, as that would be infringing on his right to life, and because "rights extend beyond laws" he must, even if found guilty, keep his right to life, as it was a law he was found guilty of breaking. As you argue the that the release of chemicals in the brain makes the fetus out as "doing something beneficial" for the mother, there are also tumors, when growing in specific locations (carcinoid tumors) that release serotonin, a chemical in the brain that increases ones feeling of well-being. Though no one would argue this is a benefit of having a tumor. You also argue "every other parasite on a human ought to be removed since it has no right to be there, unless someone consents to it". By this logic, if the mother did not consent to having a child, the child should be removed. You have just confirmed my entire argument. As the fetus is a parasite, if the mother does not consent to it, it must be removed. Let us not forget, consent to have sex, is not consent to carry and birth a child. If you honestly believe consenting to sex, is the same as consenting to carry and birth a child, and therefore the woman must go through with it, then you MUST also believe that in consenting to sex, the man must stay to raise the child into adulthood. If you do not believe the man must stay, but do believe the woman must have the child, then you sir, are not supporting woman"s rights. I have already proven how, by your words and standards, a fetus is not human, therefore, by your definition, the double murder clause is wrong. You completely ignored the numbers in my argument. I think this actually funny. As you can see, in the south, the majority of people were against slavery, just as the majority of the world was against the Nazi regime. If you would like to argue that the majority of plantation owners supported slavery (which were the minority of the population, the majority of the population were not slave or plantation owners) then I will also argue the color blue is blue. Is this not you picking and choosing what numbers and facts you use. The number of slavery supporters and plantation owners were the minority of the population. END OF STORY. The 3/5 argument was voted upon by a majority rule yes, however, only the wealthy were active in government proceedings, and in the south, the plantation owners were the wealthy ones with power, though they were also the south"s minority. So while the bill was passed in a majority rules fashion, the majority in this case simply had no say in government. As for ancient times, (I personally do not believe that it is moral to own a slave, however, we are both products of our time period) it was socially acceptable to own a slave. It is not accurate to compare vastly different time periods, as ideals, religions, and science change daily. Also you said ""because that would remove a person"s free will to choose right or wrong, thus making that person not human since they would not possess free will. " This clearly disagrees with your idea of a fetus being human, as they do not possess free will, they only have the potential to achieve free will, thus, because it does not have free will, you openly admit it"s not human. As I see another debate has begun in the comments section, allow me to point out, that factual_asshole, and yourself, have just proven free will to have no bearing on whether or not an organism is human, as Con has said ""making that person not human since they would not possess free will". factual_asshole was right in calling you out on this. You also explicitly say "limiting what someone's free will extends to". In limiting someone"s free will, you take away a trait that, by your definition, is necessary for a human to be considered as such. So a_janis, is free will still required to suit your definition? If so, then a woman not in control of her own body, (I have proven the fetus to be part of her being, alive or not) is not human.