Abortion is a mother's right.

Just to note, "the unborn entity" that is being referred to in the syllogism happens to be the point of contention in the debate, and whether or not it morally fits in the human community pretty much determines who wins. Since most of the points in the first paragraph are attacking straw men, I'll go point by point. "Even in the third trimester, when a fetus is recognizable by genus, even sometimes species, it is not yet 'part of the community.' Such a concept is not an objective characteristic."From my arguments, one can see that in order to qualify as a "part of the human community," one must be morally equivalent to a human. Up to this point in his refutation, he has not provided a moral inequivalence between an unborn entity that will become human and a human. "It is typically considered, however, that the process of birth is what brings a person into the human community, not conception."Semantic mislabeling of "human community" and appeal to popularity ("It is typically considered...")."By that argument, every eukaryotic embryo could be a member of the 'human community,' since it is a while before such a nascent lifeform is even recognizable as mammalian, let alone human."When did I mention recognizability as a factor? Blatant straw man."Thirdly, you have not yet established how a nascent lifeform that is not even distinguishable as human, let alone a member of the 'human community.'"This is an incomplete sentence and therefore, incomprehensible. (Note that this is against one of terms of debate that the opponent established. Consider for Conduct and S/G points.)"Fourthly, you must establish your original logic, before you can make claims using unsupported assumptions as supporting evidence and foundation."All of my arguments are attempting to support the first premise in the syllogism that the opponent is addressing. Photo AlbumSince birth, I have not died. My body is constantly developing since my conception, but from my conception to my current state, I have been InVino. The fetus did not "become me." An InVino with different features became an InVino with his current features, but this continuous spectrum of development, stemming from conception to death, is that of InVino. As the growth period continues, we have a transition from the embryonic stage to the fetal stage, but InVino does not die in between, just like he does not die in between adolescence and adulthood. InVino never split in two or merged with another identity; he has been a single, unified organism since conception. Sure, InVino's cells have been constantly replaced, but they originated from those of the past in a continuous spectrum of InVino's development. Therefore, InVino has always been morally equivalent to a human being. From conception onward, it was immoral to kill him; since conception, I was the same InVino as I am now, when we consider metaphysical identity. [1] SLEDa. Size: The idea that a seed to a tree is the same as an embryo to a human is unfounded. There is a confusion between TYPE and STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT. On the contrary, a seed to a tree is the same as an embryo to an ADULT! When we ask what kind of seed/embryo, the answer is clear. "What kind of seed? "Oak." (not "tree") "What kind of embryo?" "Human." (not "adult.") b. Level of Development: "The brain of a fetus or embryo does not begin working until around the third trimester." That is just wrong. [2]c. Environment: An adult who cannot be independent and depends on an oxygen mask is still a human, and unless the opponent contests this, his point is invalid. This, however, is more relevant to the next point. d. Degree of dependence: The opponent proposes that the degree to which an entity is human is founded on degree of dependence. This is unfounded, of course. There is no reason to believe that someone with diabetes and is dependent on an insulin pump is less human than someone who is not. The fallacy of the "caviar to large fish" is similar to that of the "seed and tree" fallacy that the opponent presented earlier in the debate.Natural AbortionsThe opponent does not directly contest the "natural abortions" case.The opponent then states: "Neither a fetus nor an embryo metabolizes, reproduces, nor adapts, whether by internal or external changes. It matches no characteristics of life."Someone whose digestive function is compromised is not human? Someone who is unable to reproduce (pre-puberty or sterile) is not human? It certainly adapts through its development; a developing fetus is affected by environmental stimuli and changes as a result. ---The opponent fails to refute my case. The Con position stands. ---[1] http://www.uffl.org...[2] http://www.buzzle.com...