Newly revealed natural scientific laws govern the morality of abortion

My response The issue for debate is "Newly revealed natural laws" not "new natural laws". Con's first point fails. Con's third point fails because his citation does not support his claim. The issue for debate was to have been the "Law of Hindered Birth" not what is life. However Con has moved in that direction so I will respond to Con. We should return to the agreed topic as soon as possible. We are alive because our parents were alive, their parents were alive and so forth throughout history. If even one set of parents were not alive, then of course we would not be alive. Their life, their genetic heritage is brought to us step by step from the first human. Life is not created it is passed forward. One break in the chain and Con would not be here. The fact is that humans become humans is a series of steps. There is no proof that at conception a zygote this size (.) is a human being. The actual proof is that it is human tissue. A human being has a fully developed body, a brain and is capable of controlling his environment. A human is not only visually different in size and organs but structurally different in non obvious ways. Human genetic material, a zygote and other early stages of human life, can be frozen with the use of controlled freezing and a living human cannot. So even at conception there is a difference between a zygote and a human being. The differences are structural all the way down to the DNA. DNA is the "blueprint" or "Code" for human life. No person knows the mechanisms that operate in the reading of the blueprint or code that drives the DNA to divide in Meiosis and replicate in Mitoses. What we do know is that DNA is present in the living sperm and in the living egg prior to conception. We know that at conception the egg and sperm join, sharing DNA and that no new material is brought into the conception. Prior to conception we know that the DNA of the gametes were subjected to meiosis that created a different blend of DNA than the father or the mother. We know that the material that is in the DNA existed before conception and is a mixture of DNA of the parents. We know that the DNA at conception is subjected to complex processes we do not fully understand and "crossed" over, which generates a more fully divergent offspring. We know that no new human material is created out of new matter. The DNA of the parents is simply shuffled and mixed bringing out new characteristics from existing genetic materials. To answer con's question of "what are they" is simple. At conception the zygote is a mixture of existing living materials comprised of existing DNA sequences shuffled and mixed to present new human tissue. All human life is plus or minus within a few percent of existing DNA structures shared by all living humans. We all are descendents of living humans and we are all human because of our DNA link. Despite the fact that living material is comprised of DNA, the DNA is not itself generally believed to be alive. The DNA is believed to be simply a blueprint or code used by the gametes firstly and the zef to model the future living organism regardless of species. And the different types of DNA serve interlinked processes that occur. At this stage of scientific knowledge no person can say they understand what it is about DNA and Life that make the two linked. We only know that part of the plan is the code like properties of the DNA and the other part comprises Life like properties that possibly are brought into the cell from the living gametes. In short, we don't know what life is and we don't know the processes by which DNA supports life. For those reasons alone, it is clear that Con's arguments that it is life at conception and that the life that is there is human life and not human tissue cannot be true. Con's argument makes several assumptions. First and foremost it assumes that the DNA is a total package that mediates and creates a completely new human life by some unstated method. He offers no proof to support his claims. Con does not take into account the obvious fact that the DNA could be a self writing program or a set of blueprints with hidden details. If" life" is a self writing program and DNA is simply the tablet upon which life writes, then the first instance of DNA may not contain the entire code of the human being. In effect this is why no person can be certain there is life at conception. It is also true that no person knows what goes on inside the DNA at conception and how DNA works. How does DNA know where to open and splice, how does it communicate with other cells and how does it know when and where to assemble the parts of the conceptus. We don't know. The one thing we do know is that a small percentage of conceptions do in fact become babies. We also know that because DNA is like computer code it is impossible to know what will happen with the code until the code has run its entire operation. Are there flaws in the code? We know from studies that most early abortions are due to genetic factors that are caused by faulty DNA. We know that even late term fetuses have on occasion died due to faulty DNA. Therefore it is impossible to know if a conception will become a human life until the code is completely run and there is a live birth. Nature shows us that most conceptions end in death. The numbers are as follows. Of all conceptions as many as 75 % die within the first two weeks, another 10% of the remaining conceptions die in the next 3 to 6 weeks and of those remaining another 5% percent die between week 6 and 12, and of the those living to the second trimester another 3 percent die and finally in the third trimester another 1 percent die. So a little less than 21 live births are netted from each 100 conceptions. Now if a person is honest he can see that even if one birth out of 100 was known to die then those 100 initial conceptions are in fact "potential" humans, not real humans. After all there is no way to know which conception does not live. But we are not dealing with a single death out of 100 conceptions we are dealing with 79 deaths compared to 21 live births for each 100 conceptions. So we truly are speaking of "potential life" when we speak of conceptions, embryos, fetuses or anything until there is an actual living human baby. It can't be life at conception if we don't know if it will live. Con states: "Whether the unborn are human or not is at the crux of the issue. If the unborn is not human, then there's really nothing to debate. Abortion would be an acceptable procedure, free of any moral implications. However, if the unborn is human, then no reason to willfully take their life would be sufficient. Of course we can't know if the unborn is human until it is born. Genetic flaws occur to most life and that flawed life may in fact be so flawed that it is no longer a part of the human species. Perhaps that is why most conceptions fail to live. I think we have met the concerns of Con as it relates to whether or not we know for certain that any one specific unborn zef is or is not a human. Con admits that humans are born of humans and that there is no reason to believe that will not always be the case. I have demonstrated that we do not in fact know what DNA does, how it acts, and what processes must occur before a birth can occur. I have shown that if the DNA is flawed then birth will not occur and we have made the necessary connection between the species and possibility of birth. We can say with confidence that if the DNA is so flawed that a non human species would be the result, that species would not be born, but naturally aborted. So we have proven that it is impossible to know if a child will be born until the "code is run" , there are no genetic flaws and a birth occurs. http://en.wikipedia.org...