Abortion

Thank you for letting me debate this with you. So you try to defend your definition of murder and how abortion is murder by giving me two definitions of a Human being summarized below (copy and pasted directly):1) a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.2) A member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or childWhile I agree that those definitions do not state that they have to be born to be considered a human, yet it holds no weight because you do not give a link as to where you got these definitions. I realize thats just being picky, but I do wanted to state that fact. Just because you have a definition of something doesnt mean that it is an accepted truth. For future debates, it would be beneficial for you to give supporting evidences to back up your claim. :)Anyways your own definitions fail you if we first consider (1). A baby/fetus not born yet does not meet any of the requriremens you listed. It does not have superior mental development, speech, nor upright stance. (I dont think I need to further explain why these are not true.)(2) This definition is so broad that it essentially encompasses everything that's deemed human, but yet fails to explain why these traits are deemed of human charateristics. Likewise, I can say that the Animal kindom consists of all organisms that are not prokaryotes and one cannot either refute or defend the assertion. My point that it's so broad that one can use the definition for any scenario without properly being able to refute or defend against it. As a result, it is a very weak definition of human beings.Lastly, you gave the definition of murder as UNLAWFUL premeditated killing of... but you conceded to the fact that abortion is legal in most cases thereby conceding to the fact that abortion is not murder. Although you could say it is Justifiable Homicide (only if the abortion is legal in most cases it is)Thus, we can conclude that you have failed to demonstrate why abortion is considered murder. The next argument about justifiable homicide vs "murder" is flat out wrong. While I agree that the results of abortion are the same wheter its legal or not, we are not debating about the law, we are debating about the moralilty behind abortion. Morality in certain circumstances do not have to follow proposed statutes on behavior. i.e. Roe vs. Wade.Your comparision between murder and homicide is a selfish view. You fail to consider that its not the baby itself who is the concern, the mother has to be taken into consideration too. What you failed to explain on is why this unborn baby has more rights than a living mother.If a teenager is raped and she gets pregnant (now this is rare for a teenager to get pregnant from a rape so you can barely make this point but I will address it anyways)"An estimated 60 percent of teen girls’ first pregnancies are preceded by experiences of molestation, rape, or attempted rape."http://www.feministe.us...I guess over half of the population isn't high enough for you.You go on to argue that it's the fathers fault, which is partially true, but why suffer for something when you've done nothing wrong? You fail to realize that just because there are people who can take care of a baby doesnt mean they have the time, resources, or ability to handle a child. If it was easy to rear a child then we should have babies at the start of puberty, because the younger we are, the more likely we are to have healthier babies.Moreover, assuming that the child is born as a result of unwanted pregnancy, if one does not have the resources or ability to take care of a child, why let a child into this world when all hes gonna do is suffer? By the way, abortion isnt considered justfiable homicide at least most of society doesnt consider it. YOU put that definition towards abortion. Im only disaproving the issues you decide to talk about.now going back to the human being definition: there by it can't be a mammal because of the difference between a human being and a mammal, that a fetus is developing even before the mother aborts the fetus/baby. I do not understand what you mean. It seems to me that you are conceding to my point in R2? Humans are mammals, but a mammal doesnt have to be a human. If we are not mammasl then we are not human, which means abortion is irrelevant to humans. My question in R2 referencing to mammals was for you to clarify your statement. I never made any assertions about mammals or humans. You failed to understand the points im making about the nutrition argument. IM rebutting what you said in r1. I'm not gonna respond back to this because nutrients is irelevnat and moreover, you failed to understand your own arguments.ConclusionI'm pretty sure ive made my argument clear considering con hasn't bothered with refuting my assertions.