Abortion

My apologies, my time is running short with things that came up during the workweek so I don't have as much time to devote to this debate as I would've liked. Let me condense your contentions (1) abortion is morally wrong (2) the inalienable right to life supersedes any law. A fetus has an inalienable right to life. (3) something is still a human being if it doesn't have emotion, feelings, or consciousness (4) a fetus is a human being because it grows towards biological complexity and has unique human DNA (5) abortion should be allowed if the mom or fetus can be saved rather than both dying because we all have a right to life. (6) a woman that is raped should not be allowed to have an abortion because the fetus is innocent and has a right to life. I think those were the main contentions placed discussed. I wish I had more time to go through it in better detail. (1) you never explicitly said "morally" wrong but you argued that abortion was "wrong" apart from the law. Tell me, without invoking God, how can you say that something is morally wrong as if there are definitive moral laws that exist? (2) this goes back to a "moral law" that is being appealed to. On who's moral authority is someone to argue that someone has a definitive right to life? If these rights arent "given" by any of us humans you must be arguing for a moral law giver. I find it impossible to argue this without a moral authority, such as God. I see no reason to believe that a moral authority exists. (3) the very essence of being human is consciousness, emotions, and feeling. What difference is there between a stone and a non-consciousness, non-feeling, and unemotional biological structure? Physical composition alone. There's no difference in mental acuity. This bring me back to the question you wanted me to answer: is a human being still a human being if it doesn't have arms or legs? Yes it's still a human being. A brain dead person is still a human being. So is a person with dementia or Alzheimer's. So is a severely mentally retarded person. All of these examples are of people who have had or currently have limited mental acuity. If we abort a fetus before it develops any mental acuity, I don't see how this is analogous to any such examples that might come up. (4) I'll agree that it's considered a human fetus and that its alive, but I can't consider it to be a "living human being." It has the same mental and emotional acuity as a rock and depends entirely on the mother to sustain itself. Only when the fetus reaches the 24th week it can be considered it's own organism since it can exist apart from the mother. Sure, it has the potential before that 24th week to be its own organism but we shouldn't consider it to be its own organism because of that. (5) this is interesting because you'll agree that abortion is permissible in some circumstances. Only circumstances where the right to life is possibly being violated. Why stop there though? This is more of a subjective moral issue. I don't see why subjective moral issues ought to determine the rights of others. An atheist mother may see herself as her own moral authority and within her legal right to abort her fetus. (6) yes it isn't the fetus' fault that it's the product of rape. The pregnancy is just an emotional reminder of the event that led to that pregnancy though. The abortion *could* be traumatic for the mother but why not let the mother choose what's right for her?