Abortion

While i will concede, some of what you said was true, let it be known there is no scientific definition of life. In the definition you provided "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" you will see that it is simply characteristics of living things. I will also concede that i should have worded that better in my first argument. The relevance of my extraterrestrial life argument however, seems clear to me. There is an overwhelming possibility that extra terrestrial life does exist. However, there is no way of proving that, if it does exist, will abide by the same rules. While your definition of life may be accepted, it cannot be relied upon. Lets look at the definition of the word, "definition": "State or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of:" ( http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... ) Because there is a possibility that life will not always fall into the characteristics i afore mentioned, there can be no definition. A beautiful example of things that don't fit into the category they have been placed is Elysia chlorotica, a photosynthetic sea slug, belonging to the the same kingdom as humans (animalia) which had several characteristics, including that they were to be heterotrophs. Elysia chlorotica can manufacture its own chlorophyll, giving it the ability to be heterotrophic. You may ask what the point of the above tangent was, allow me to explain. If science can not adequately list a series of definite characteristics of one small kingdom, then how could one believe they have a definite understanding/definition of life. While I certainly agree that we are both clinically living, that simply implies we posses all the characteristics of other organisms that are also clinically alive. While arguing science, it is important to remember science doesn't prove one thing true, it proves other things false. The word "death" was not necessary. Termination: "an act of ending something" ( http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) If I was going to abort a child, i would presume we are debating legal abortions up to the 24th week, i would be terminating the pregnancy. Because a fetus cannot survive without its mother before the 24th week, you would be "ending' the fetus as well. While i will also agree the fetus is alive clinically, so is a tumor (I'll use the tumor comparison to maintain consistency). A tumor would also have a genetic difference from its host. That genetic mutation is why a tumor is grown in the first place. The tumor would even have human DNA, as it grew on a human, however, the DNA would ot be the same as the host. Though no one would argue that the tumor is not actually part of them.. While a newborn does require care, it is not the care of a biological host. Because a fetus requires the mother to live, would it not be fair to say that the mother is living for the fetus. If the mother were to die, the fetus would follow. As opposed to a mother dying during the birthing process, the newborn can still survive. Is it not fair to say that it is the mother's life, and the fetus is simply part of it. Without the mother, the fetus would also fail to grow, which is, as you put it "fundamental". And if a fetus lacks the ability to function on its own, without the support of its mother, and without the ability to reason, can it truly have free will? Innocence it extremely subjective. In our culture, you could be found guilty of crime. (We'll use murder as an example.) In several cultures around the world, ritualistic killings are perfectly acceptable. In their own way, they are innocent of any possible crime involving their killing. However by our standards, it would be considered murder, and we could be found guilty of it. Objective morality itself in such a hotly debated topic. Humans are not born knowing right from wrong, just as one persons morals are not necessarily the same as another's. to claim there is a "perfect standard of morality" is foolhardy, as every cultures sense of morality is different. If an objective morality was in existence (i do not believe it is) then the world should all agree across the board on all topics, such on war. The very fact that we are debating the abortion of a fetus is a perfect example on how objective morality is not at play. I however, do not agree we should be able to do whatever we want. Morality certainly exists, though it it is subjective. Even the United States Government is run on objective morality. The court system as well. A guilty finding is simply a group jurors with similar morals though not necessarily the same, they simply agree the defendants crime was against their own morals. A group of people finding something wrong or immoral, does not mean another group will. For example, i think Hitler was atrocious, however neo-nazi's believe he was in the right. Morality is simply a big game of "majority rules". If morality is majority rules, innocence via morality, must also be. The fetus as well, can be likened to a parasite. Parasite: "an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment." ( http://dictionary.reference.com... ) A fetus certainly fits the definition. If one was infected with any form of parasite (now including a fetus by definition) should they not have the option to have it removed?