Abortion

First of all, there is a scientific definition of life. Life: 1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce < . http://www.biology-online.org... >. So yes there is a scientific definition of life. Furthermore, your extraterrestrial point is entirely irrelevant because abortion deals with the living human being on Earth. And since science can definitively define life on Earth, I then do not understand why the "extraterrestrial" argument was included due to its inherent irrelevancy. Also, you say that life can never be defined by science, and because life cannot be defined by science, then the fetus does not have the right to life. Well if science cannot define life (as you said), then no one has the right to life because science, according to your argument, does not definitively prove either you or me to be alive. And since we both agree we are scientifically alive, then obviously science can and does define what life is. So do you accept that there is a scientific vindication of life? Also you say abortion is the "intentional termination of a developing fetus". According to my definition, you left out a key word. Here is the definition of abortion Abortion: "a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the DEATH of the fetus. < . http://www.merriam-webster.com... >. Abortion causes the death of the fetus. Lets now look at the definition of death. Death: "the end of life : the time when someone or something dies" < . http://www.merriam-webster.com... >. Death can only occur when something was alive prior. Therefore, because abortion results in the death of the fetus, the fetus must have had life before the abortion took place. Therefore the fetus is alive. Also, again let us look scientifically at how the fetus is alive. First, I must make a key point. A newborn baby does not have the capacity or ability to reproduce, yet the ability to reproduce is a defining characteristic of scientific life. However, science and logic both know that a newborn baby is alive. Why? Well the baby has not yet grown into enough biological complexity to reproduce, but the baby has the potential to reproduce. The same argument is applied for determining that the fetus is alive. The fetus, from the moment of conception, begins biological growth from biological simplicity into biological complexity. Nothing is conceived in its full potential, therefore, by showing the fundamental sign of life from which all other characteristics of life stem, the fetus is alive. Biological growth from simplicity into complexity is enough for the fetus to be considered alive. Here is the same argument stated another way. As a commenter on this debate advised me, I am trying to avoid saying the same things I used in my previous Abortion debate. But I will quote this paragraph merely because it was never refuted and also because it is worded in a different way that might make more sense: "Now, a fetus shows scientific signs of life starting with the most simplistic from which other signs can stem (i. e. reproduction, respiration etc. ). This foundation is the ability to grow. No being is created in its full potential at the moment of its conception. Everything has a beginning from which, due to growth towards more complex potential, life exists. By the mere fact the fetus is growing from biological simplicity into biological complexity we can soundly say the being must be alive. Biological growth, which a fetus possesses, is the foundation by which life is marked, for without growth, none of the other factors pointing towards life could exist. " Can you now agree the fetus is alive? Also, note that i have not yet shown the fetus is uniquely human. I will do that now while also responding to your next argument. Next you say the fetus and the mother "are one. " Tell me, if the body of the mother and the body of the fetus are the same, then why does the human DNA of the fetus differ from the human DNA of the mother? By the mere fact that the DNA differs between the fetus and the mother, science proves that the fetus and mother are not the same. No human being biologically produces cells that have different human DNA from the body that produced it. A fetus therefore is not the same as the mother. A sperm cell is not, in itself, genetically unique from the father. An egg cell is not, in itself, genetically unique from the mother. However, when the egg and sperm meet at conception, they form a new being with entirely unique human DNA that has never existed before, separate even from the mother and father. This proves the fetus is uniquely human and different from the mother. Furthermore, of course the fetus is connected to the mother. The fetus is dependent on the mother for survival. But a new born baby is also dependent on the mother/father/doctor for survival. The dependency of the fetus on the mother does not then make the fetus not living or not human. Innocence and guilt can only be applied to beings with free will. The only beings with free will are human beings. That is why a tumor can neither be innocent nor guilty because the tumor has no free will on which to act upon. This eliminates your "tumors are innocent" argument. There are varying levels on which humans use free will. It is safe to say humans are conceived with the potential to access their latent ability to use free will just as any human is conceived with all the genetic latent potential to access and use a strong mental acuity. Therefore, every fetus (because the fetus is a human being) has free will, and because the fetus has not acted in a wrong manner, then the fetus is innocent. Also innocence is not subjective, because innocence can only correspond with an objective morality. Here is why innocence and then morality can be objective. I will take the same argument I used in my last debate because the argument was never refuted and then expand upon the argument and tie it in with innocence. "1. For everything, there is a standard by which everything else can be relevant towards. For example there is cold, which is the absence of heat. There is a minimum heat capacity by which coldness is measured, which is absolute zero. There is a heat capacity by which heat is measured. So there are certain levels of perfection. If something morally exists, then is there not a perfect standard by which we judge such morality? There must be. Otherwise, our lives our meaningless for nothing can truly be justified or condemned. You can call this perfect standard "God" if you so choose, but there must be, by necessity, some perfect moral standard from which actions can all be judged. 2. If you believe no perfect moral authority/standard exists, then you must admit we should be free to do whatever we wish without repercussion. With no morality, there are no rights, and without rights there would be no true law. So therefore, by believing there is no morality, or that morality is subjective, the Nazi genocides are acceptable and equally permissible for they cannot be held responsible for their wrong actions. However, since obviously the Nazi"s actions were atrocious, it would be well within logical reason to say a perfect moral authority must exist. " Since I have shown there must be, by necessity, an objective, perfect moral standard, we then judge innocence based on that morality. And because morality is an objective truth, then innocence also must be an objective truth. If innocence did not exist, then we could no longer protect people by condemning the unjust. Without innocence, there would also be no guilt. Without guilt, we could not convict or protect. Innocence and guilt are both objective. Also I never said in my opening argument anything about the legality of abortion. I merely said abortion is wrong and breaks the inalienable right to life. However, if you would like me to do so, I will argue why abortion should be illegal in my next argument because I do not have sufficient room to do so here.