Abortion is morally wrong

Thank you for your initial outline. Before I do anything, I want to clearly define human, as I find your definition to be far from sufficient. If we define human as "any creature that has the capacity to live and survive outside of the womb", then surely this includes a whole host of creatures which are obviously not human. This definition doesn't specify what type of womb, nor any conditions for the creatures that are distinct to humans. Surely, even a pig, or a cow, or an insect meets this definition. Therefore, the definition I will be using will be a standard biological definition of human. I choose this definition because it seems to me that whether a fetus is human or not is a scientific question. Being as human itself is technically a looser term for the scientific name Homo Sapien, the following definition is the one I'll use.Human - A bipedal primate belonging to the genus Homo, especially Homo Sapien (1)Murder - The unjustified killing of one human being by anotherUnborn - The stages of mammalian life from conception until the moment prior to birth (in the context of this debate I will be referring to the unborn of human mothers)Life - According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, life is, “a material complex or individual characterized by the capacity to perform certain functional activities, including metabolism, growth, reproduction, and some form of responsiveness and adaptation.”In this first round, my intention is to present my main argument in detail. If room remains, I will also begin addressing your case.Main ArgumentMy main argument can be easily summarized into an easy syllogism with two premises and a conclusion. It is as follows:P1: A human being has the right to live, in virtue of his/her common humanity. It is wrong to murder a human being.P2: From the moment of conception, the unborn are human beings.C: The unborn have the right to live in virtue of their common humanity. It is wrong to murder the unborn. P1: A human being has the right to live/It is wrong to murder a human beingI will not spend very much time on this first premise, because I am going to assume you will not be contesting this one. What I will say is that murder, as defined, is the unjustified killing of another human being. This implies that there are in fact cases where the killing of a human being could be morally permissible. I think such cases exist, and some examples include self-defense and possibly during war. In the context of abortion, I think there also are exceptions that follow the same principles. For example, the abortion of an unborn child that will kill the mother, is self defense and I find perfectly justified. In other words, any exception to "abortion is morally wrong" will, and should, follow the very same principles for the exceptions for killing any human being after birth. P2: From the moment of conception, the unborn are human beings.Now, I was very surprised to see in your original outline that you will be defending the position that the fetus or unborn is not human. I am surprised because this goes completely against the mainstream view in science. In fact, there is very little contention in embryology as to whether a zygote/embryo/fetus is human. Its a scientific question, and its been answered. Dr. Robert George, author of the book Embryo, states that:“...In human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.”Now, I will lay out in more detail the main reasons this is in fact the mainstream view:i. Its AliveAfter conception, human embryos exhibit all of the features listed in our definition of life. A fertilized embryo already carries out the process of metabolism. It grows and develops from within. It responds to stimuli and mantains homeostasis. Lastly, it contains the genetic potential for reproduction. You may argue that reproductive potential isn't enough, but surely genetic potential is sufficient, for even a four year old boy/girl cannot yet reproduce, but is without a doubt alive. ii. Its a Unique (Separate from the mother) OrganismOne might be able to argue that a fetus or embryo is dependent upon the mother, but one cannot possibly hold water with the claim that the fetus is part of the mother. Science helps us make that distinction quite clearly. A fertilized human embryo has its own unique genetic human signature that is different than that of either of its parents. Furthermore, this genetic code is literally directing the self-development of the unborn. An embyo, therefore, is already a separate and unique human being with its own unique genetic code directing its growth and development. One might say "but its dependent on the mother", but to be dependent upon your environment (in this case the mother) is not something unique to a fetus. We too, need a particular environment to continue living. But like our environment, the mother is not actively assembling the new organism within her, rather the organism is assembling itself from within while only giving/taking resources and waste to and from the mother. From a genetic and biological standpoint, the fetus is completely unique from the mother, and completely human. iii. A Philosophical ArgumentPhilosophically, we have more good reasons to think that the unborn are human. There is nothing about the unborn that is sufficiently different to strip them of their humanity. Things like size, level of development, environment (location), degree of dependency, or anything else, are not essential features of what it means to be a human being. It is my contention that if any of those types of features are used as a basis to consider a fetus not human, the same argument could be used for humans after birth. One example would be the development of sentience. If exhibiting sentience is the qualification for being human, then one must consider a temporarily (and reversibly) comatose person who may not be able to experience pain or anything of the sort. Arguing that this person has 'lost their humanity' would be absurd. The point is, any feature such as this that you choose ends up being arbitrary and non-essential to what it means to be human, and therefore ends up arguing for too much. Going down that route ends up with you ruling out people we know to be human beings - absurd conclusions. There is nothing sufficiently different about the unborn that would strip it of its humanity. C: The unborn have the right to live in virtue of their common humanity. It is wrong to murder the unborn.I've shown that the fetus/embyo is in fact a human being both scientifically and philosophically, contrary to your contention that the "fetus is not a human being". I've shown that scientifically, the fetus/embryo is a genetically and biologically unique organism that is growing and self-developing from within. Furthermore, I've given good arguments to show that being dependent upon the mother is not the same as being part of the mother. This is all contrary to your contention that "the mother is...part of the mother's body". And lastly, I've stated that their are exceptional circumstances which is perfectly compatible with my position. I look forward for your response. Sources:1. http://www.biology-online.org...2. http://fallibleblogma.com...3. http://www.humblelibertarian.com...5. The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice by Christopher Kaczor