Abortion is a form of murder

Debates on abortion I feel, through experience, invariably get down to (if they continue so far) contests of definitions, and I do not think it a failing for my opponent nor myself that here, in the final round of this 5-round marathon, we still do not agree on terms. That is where you, audience, must decide in terms of whether someone changed your mind or not. I find it highly unlikely that anyone's mind is changed, as abortion is one of those "once you go down path X or Y, forever will it dominate your future!" issues. Its probably pointless to debate, but I still think it worth rehashing once in awhile to get your particular message or take on it, and I believe my opponent agrees with me at least on that. Anyhow, back onto the debate ... First, I do not agree that 'murder' applies only to people, but I do concede that very few people -- to the point that it would be a ridiculous argument for me to make -- value all life (even non-human) as obsessively as I do. That's sort of an ad-hominem attack on myself, though, and its a point I'll surrender during abortion debates. My opponent has altered or clarified his definition of "human being" such that (I gather now) if any of the conditions he gave are met, the lump of living flesh qualifies as a human being. This is still grotesquely ridiculous in my book, and I have several hypothetical examples to show why: === CON: "I argued that a fetus is not a human being because it satisfies none of the following conditions: having conscious thought, memory, an ability to breathe or make sounds, a social identity, an ability to feel pain [1] [2](which I just added now), and a separate identity." === Note that con still uses "and" as a conjunction, so in a literal sense (going by what he typed instead of what he appears to mean), all of those conditions must be met for a life to be considered a human being. However, I realize semantics is a minor argument and doubtlessly I have my own flawed semantics here or there, and add to that, Con did clarify that he meant any one of those items (grammar correction: if so, he should have used 'or' or perhaps 'and/or' instead of 'and'). Here are hypothetical examples that prove con's definition of a human being, even clarified, are ridiculous: Con may argue against dolphins having conscious thought, memory, a social or separat identity -- things I would disagree with (I believe a dolphin possesses all of these things), I no longer need to prove that a dolphin does to stick a dolphin in the category of being a human being under Con's clarified position. Merely the inarguable (I presume!) facts that dolphins have an ability to breath, make sounds and feel pain, is sufficient to qualify a dolphin as a human being under Con's "any of these conditions" list. A dolphin would /not/ qualify under my definition as a human being, which is simply: A living being genetically identifiable as belonging to the species homo sapien. A 'living' being to me is fairly simple: its cells are "alive" and undergoing cellular division. Both requirements must be met for something to be identified as a human being. A dolphin, lacking genetic identifiability as a human being, would fail my definition. Another ridiculous hypothetical situation: If, hypothetically, you assumed that a fetus can feel pain, wouldn't that suffice to make a fetus a human being under your clarified "any of these conditions" versus the literal one I tried to follow as "all of these conditions?" If it is "any of the conditions," then the bar is so low that a fetus would qualify as a human being -- but as stated above, even a non-human would have traits to qualify them as a human being as well. A third ridiculous hypothetical situation: A person is struck by a car and takes a lot of damage. There's a good chance they will recover, but for a time they are in a coma and dependent on an iron lung to breathe. They have no conscious thought, no memory, no ability to breathe or make sounds, no social identity, no ability to feel pain (they are unconscious, their nervous system is inactive), nor a separate identity. A person in a coma dependent on life support to breathe, but believed to have a reasonably good chance of recovery, does not meet any of Con's conditions to qualify as a human being and anyone could terminate their life and not be guilty of murder nor even manslaughter. Con can whine about straw man arguments all he wants, but it is up to you, voters, to decide whether my counterarguments are reasonable (whether or not you agree with my side or position, that's a separate part of the voting process). === This debate has sadly reached its final round, so I am down to a conclusive summary and I have no more chances within this debate to respond to any rebuttals: When a sperm and egg come together in the process we call conception, a new life is created. It may not have recognizeable organs such as a heart or lung when it is only a few cells, but it is nonetheless alive ... its cells consume nutrients and divide; that fits the bill as being alive, in my book. And if you were to pluck one of those cells out of the mother's womb and take it to a DNA analyzer, you would find that cell to be that of a human being, having a unique combination of half of its mother's and half of its father's DNA ... while it may be dependent on its mother for life support, it is a separate entity with a genetic identity all of its own. Barring some tragic incident causing miscarriage, there is no reason to assume that it will not grow from its conscious-less state into a conscious being -- this is, to me, akin to someone in a coma who nonetheless has a reasonable chance to wake up someday and come out of it. Not Terry Schiavo at all, as she had no real chance of recovery and she was permanently dependent on life support and medically it was determined that she was brain dead with no conscious thought nor memory. No, a fetus -- as someone otherwise healthy in a coma -- will 'recover' from their 'inactive' status and they are very much alive. I know a lot will disagree with that, as abortion is a highly contentious issue (I daresay -the- most contentious and divisive issue of all time). I have come to greatly respect and admire DDO debaters for their willingness to take up the opposite side of an argument than they truly believe as a challenge, and they still give it their all. I have also been impressed by voters taking sides on a debate opposite to how they truly feel, when they acknowledged the opposition did put up a better argument. I am not generally a fan of blind faith, but I want each of you voters to know that I place faith in each of you to read and re-read through the arguments and vote for the debater who made the most reasonable arguments, did the most to understand what their opponent was stating and respond to it, and for the one who did not resort to name-calling taunts or slams. I nervously look forward to the results of this debate, and I look forward to future debates. I do thank Con for hanging in there with this debate with me (I'm a total newbie), this has been a fascinating debate and I look forward to my next one with you. Overall, I am very impressed with DDO, I am glad it has not been overrun too badly by trolls or ad hominem arguers. Adieu and Namaste!