Newly revealed natural scientific laws govern the morality of abortion

My points stand. First, as I indicated, by Pro's own admission this is not a new law. Also, it is not a "newly revealed" law. It would be ridiculous to think that up until just recently, a woman actually thought, "it's okay! I can carry this kid to term because I'll just get pregnant with another kid and have them both!"Also, my third point stands. It's conceivable that I misunderstood the link due to confusing language. However, as I indicated aborting the child wouldn't bring about a wanted child because most girls/women who abort an unwanted child do so because of life situations: she wants to go to/finish school, she wants to get a job, etc. These situations are unlikely to be resolved in the nine months that she would be pregnant with the unwanted child.In the case of rape, this still isn't a good reason. If the child is a living human, then killing them just because they're unwanted is wrong. That's why the humanity of the unborn is such an important issue in this debate. You still haven't answered my analogy. If the woman can't kill her two-year-old child because she was a rape victim, why should she be able to kill the child in utero?The "Law of Hindered Birth" rises or falls with the humanity of the unborn. If the unborn are not living humans, then they should be able to be aborted for any reason. However, if they are living humans, then the "Law of Hindered Birth" is not a good reason to abort because they should be protected like any other human. You must show why this "law" is a good reason to abort a human child.Here, Pro asserts that "life is passed forward." If that is true, then by his very admission zygotes/embryos/fetuses are alive because there was never a break in the chain (hence why I am here), and they are human because the human life has been passed forward. So it seems this makes his following argument moot. Human life has been passed forward without a break in the chain.However, what do noted embryologists O’Rahilly and Muller have to say on the matter? "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." [1] These are embryologists (experts in the field) who place the beginning of life at fertilization."A human being has a fully developed body, a brain and is capable of controlling his environment."Says who? This is just an assertion. I have just shown you an embryologist who says that life begins are fertilization. If space permits, I'll quote others. We say that a human being is a living entity of the human species with basic rights. Which definition makes more sense?"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."Actually, with the development of technologies such as nanotechnology it may be possible to freeze adult humans in the future (some organizations already freeze humans who have died in the hopes that they may one day be revived and saved). [2] Even if they couldn't, however, that would just be one other advantage a very young human has over an adult human (they can also live without a heartbeat)."So even at conception there is a difference between a zygote and a human being."There are differences between toddlers and adults. You have not shown that these differences are sufficient in proclaiming them non-human (especially since you claim that life is "passed forward")."At conception the zygote is a mixture of existing living materials comprised of existing DNA sequences shuffled and mixed to present new human tissue."So at what point does the "tissue" actually become a "human?" Where there's a brain? What about the day before? How developed does the brain have to be? Why does the brain matter at all to being a human?"...we don't know what life is..."It is true that scientists are still trying to define life, but what they do for now is note different characteristics that all living beings have (e.g. growth, reaction to stimuli, metabolism, etc.). Your assertion that just because we haven't yet defined life means anything about the embryo is false. Besides, even if we're not sure, the benefit of the doubt should go to life. If you're a hunter in the woods and you hear rustling in the bushes nearby, do you fire right away or wait to make sure you're not going to shoot somebody? You would wait and make sure there's not a person that you're aiming at (Dick Cheney notwithstanding)."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."This is simply ridiculous. I don't know about you, but if I have sex and get a woman pregnant, there is no doubt in my mind that the unborn child growing within her is human. Have you ever produced a non-human offspring? If every child who has ever came out of a human woman has been human, isn't it reasonable to understand that every human reproduces a human? In fact, it would be ludicrous to think that the child who will come out of the woman will be anything but a human. We don't have to "wait and see," especially since doctors can tell via ultrasound. They don't do ultrasounds to make sure the child within her is "still a human," they do ultrasounds to make sure the developing child is still healthy and developing normally. Virtually everyone agrees there is human life in the moments before birth (not to mention, months before birth)."Nature shows us that most conceptions end in death."Actually, all conceptions end in death. That doesn't say anything about the value of the being, nor does it mean we can kill them at will. Just because a tsunami kills people doesn't mean we have the right to nuke cities.If the numbers you quoted are accurate (you give no sources, so I can't verify your numbers), then it seems that life that does implant and develop is special because it has beaten the odds. This life should be protected, not destroyed."...those 100 initial conceptions are in fact 'potential' humans, not real humans."No, they were real humans that died young. They were potential toddlers and full humans."It can't be life at conception if we don't know if it will live."So logically, it can't be life at birth if we don't know if it will get SIDS or not."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."You have not given any reason to doubt that the unborn are humans at any point. However, could you please give some examples?Just because there is some mystery to how DNA works doesn't mean that we can't know that the being is human or has human DNA. There was an article written in 1998, published in the Forensic Science International, titled "Multiplex amplification of mitochondrial DNA for human and species identification in forensic evaluation." [3] The scientist concluded, "In a first step, examination of the coamplified fragments on agarose gel allows for screening of human (two bands, 309 and 259 bp) or animal (one band, 309 bp) specificity." He was able to tell the difference between human and animal DNA.As you can see, Pro's assertions are not backed up by science and are only conjecture to prove his views. My three points from the previous round stand.[1] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.[2] http://cryonics.org...;[3] 8: Martin Bataille, Karine Crainic, Michel Leterreux, Michel Durigon, Philippe de Mazancourt, Multiplex amplification of mitochondrial DNA for human and species identification in forensic evaluation, Forensic Science International, Volume 99, Issue 3, 25 January 1999, Pages 165-170, ISSN 0379-0738, DOI: 10.1016/S0379-0738(98)00185-6.