We Can Be Reasonably Confident that Abortion Entails the Killing of a Human Being

Josh said: "When I say that generally when two members of the same species reproduce, they produce a new member of the same species, I am trying to communicate an objective truth."Yes, since you are a Christian, this is how you must argue.For example, you must believe that, in the below image, there exists a tolerance value "J" -- for at least the third example.http://goo.gl...Hence, in the above image, if Josh and Rasputin walk to the right too far, we will have included too many organisms in the set of humans. But, if we don't walk far enough, we will have included too few organisms in the set of humans.Now even if we suppose that Josh and Rasputin agree on a benchmark (say we use our friend Craig, or even a hypothetical Adam & Eve), we are still left with the question:"How shall we choose our J?"Is J the sort of number that can be unearthed via scientific evidence or formal logic? e.g. as one might derive Pi, or attempt to get increasingly better estimates of the length that light can travel in an interval of time?Or, is J the sort of number that is merely concocted as a matter of convention?Let's explore this.What sort of scientific evidence might we employ to find the objectively true J?To start, we might use the same technique used by Martin Bataille et al -- in the paper Josh quoted above. Martin got some saliva from an undergrad student. And he picked out some meat at the grocery store. Then he looked for differences in his samples. (1)We can do this too!Josh and I can go to the San Diego Zoo, and Josh can point to all the things in the world which he thinks are not human.Then, we need only compare our newly-gathered samples to our Craig sample (2), and derive a number depicting the difference.Suppose that, after a few long hours of bench biology, we come to the conclusion that Butch the Chimp is 4.24089% different than Craig.And voila! We have successfully derived our J! http://img824.imageshack.us...We need only keep this number under 4% to exclude all of the organisms which we don't want to call "human."Now of course the obvious problem with this scenario lies in the fact that we're merely applying our own subjective sample selection criteria.Suppose that some animal rights protester came along and insisted that our J value was too low -- and that Butch was indeed a human.Alternatively, Suppose that a Nazi sympathizer came along and insisted that our J value was too high -- and that only a very small set of white Europeans were actually human.How might Josh and I use "scientific evidence" to show them that our specimen collection method was the objectively true one, and that their method is flawed?How might someone craft a "scientific experiment" to reveal the objectively true J?For if Josh is not able to craft an argument that shows that there exists ONE OBJECTIVELY TRUE value for J, then he must settle for a mere SUBJECTIVE VALUE for J.And if this value is purely a SUBJECTIVE construct, then there is no OBJECTIVELY true answer to the question:"What is a human?"Notes:1. "Samples of human DNA were extracted from human saliva cell pellet using the Qiagen QIAamp blood kit. Animal DNA was obtained from various species (pig, chicken, horse, beef) by extraction of fragments of meat samples, either cooked or raw, with the Qiagen QIAamp tissue kit." - Multiplex amplification of mitochondrial DNA for human and species identification in forensic evaluation page 22. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...