Newly revealed natural scientific laws govern the morality of abortion

So we have reached our final round. As I read my opponent's final round argument, I have to ask myself (and, I suppose, the reader will also ask themselves) if Givemeliberty and I even read the same debate. Did he even ready my arguments or is he simply arguing based on what he assumes I will say? He has not responded to my arguments, and he has certainly not proven any of his alleged "facts" or the resolution at large. The resolution is: "newly revealed natural scientific laws govern the morality of abortion. " Liberty has not proven that it has. Quite the contrary, I have proven that it does not. What does govern the morality of abortion is whether or not the unborn is a living human being. If they are, then abortion is morally reprehensible. Who would support killing a child simply because they are unwanted? Why would we treat the unborn the same way, if the are living humans like you or more? If they are not, then abortion is morally acceptable and there really should be no limits on abortion. I have proven that the unborn are living humans, and have supplied ample evidence from embryologists, the experts in the field, who tell us that a new, unique human life is created at conception. Liberty could not even supply a quote from one expert to show otherwise. His argument remains, "embryologists don't agree with me, so they are wrong. " In fact, Liberty has not supplied one expert who claims that life is "passed on," instead he equivocates. The embryologist said that life is a cycle, but this is because we are conceived, we are born, we grow up, we have kids, we grow old, we die. Our children do the same, our children's children do the same. Life is a cycle; it is not "passed on. " He has called all the embryologists, the experts in the field, liars. Yet he has no experts to back up his own claims. Seeing as this is our last round, I will not present any new arguments. However, I will respond to a few of Liberty's more ridiculous statements. I have proven that the "Law of Hindered Birth is not a law. " Women, of course, can't get pregnant again when they are pregnant. However, life is not "passed on. " If the pregnant woman keeps an unwanted child (which, by the way, then becomes wanted -- so the law is moot when unwanted children are kept), then the abstract "wanted child" is not being denied anything. They are not alive, they have not been conceived. They have no life to deny. This is why this "law" is not a law at all. It is simply a philosophical position, and not a very strong one, at that. This law does not state a fact. In fact, Liberty could not give a single expert who backed up his law. "He has not made one single valid argument to challenge the 'Law of Hindered Birth' or to prove that it does not 'partially govern' the impact that abortion has on society. "Your resolution does not state that the law "partially" governs the morality, but that it governs it. An absolute statement. The resolution is what you are arguing here. Also, I have made many valid arguments. Just no arguments that you like (since they are detrimental to your case). I will now respond to Liberty's points. Most of them involve how he doesn't see them as relevant, which is ridiculous. I have shown that they are relevant.1) You have not proven anything about her situation. If a woman gets pregnant with her lover and doesn't want the child, her situation is not likely to drastically change in nine months to where she would want a child. You have not shown how it could.2) You have proven nothing. You have offered no sources to back up your claims. Even if they are true, they don't prove that abortion is morally acceptable. If an unborn child has a slim chance at life, then the best thing to do would be to allow the child to miscarry naturally, then have the wanted child that she wants (which, possibly unless she was raped, she would not want right away anyway). This does not prove it's okay for us to take the life of the unborn. As I stated before, people die of old age but this doesn't make murder morally acceptable.3) This is a perfectly valid argument, and falls under "one Liberty doesn't like because it's detrimental to his argument. " The child does not exist in the "sperm and the egg. " A new child is created once the sperm and the egg unite. But why would you listen to me, since you don't even listen to the experts?4) Liberty seems confused about his own definition of "law. " Let me show you: "A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'. " This proves my point. Laws don't deal in what is "possible. " They deal in what is true and observable. Liberty's alleged "law" is not based on truth, but on conjecture. It is no law at all.5) Liberty admits there is not disagreement with what the embryologists said. Therefore, they prove that since the unborn are living humans, killing them because they are simply unwanted is barbaric. No one would support killing a two-year-old child for that reason.6) Again, the law is incorrect. If one life is forced, the other life is not impossible, just delayed.7) This has everything to do with it. Another one you don't like because it's detrimental to your case. If you can't tell the unborn are human because they might not be born, then you can't tell if a newborn is human because it might die of SIDS before it reaches adolescence.8) This does have to do with the law or the woman, because if the unborn are living humans then killing them because they are unwanted is barbaric.9) Again, I will not repeat myself.10) This does have impact on the debate, since you, yourself, have stated that life is "passed on" and the potential wanted fetus is a human while the unwanted fetus is mere "human tissue. " You have a double-standard which is not backed up by reason or science.11) This does belong in the debate, because it speaks against the very thing you are trying to prove. You seem to be worried about the one "wanted fetus" that will make it through and survive, and not the other "wanted" fetuses who will be miscarried or flushed out. All of those lives will be gone, too, if she aborts the unwanted one.12) This does belong in the debate because it counters your erroneous view of pro-lifers.13) This is exactly true and you have not shown otherwise.14) It does and I have.15) This does, as you made the claim that no one (or very few people) think my ideas are valid. You have not offered proof, therefore you can't make the claim that my views are invalid simply because you disagree with them.16) It does.17) It does as you've made the claim that by keeping the unwanted child, the wanted one will "lose its life. " You have not proven this at all. Liberty has consistently misconstrued my words and made strawman arguments against me. I made no claims to the validity of this ridiculous law, only to one part of it (that a woman who is pregnant cannot be pregnant again while pregnant with the first). Again, was Liberty even reading the same debate I've been responding to? Thanks again to Liberty for offering this challenge. However, it is quite obvious that Liberty is clinging to this "law" with all the fervor of a religious zealot who won't change his mind on anything despite all the evidence to the contrary. He views my arguments are irrelevant not because they are, but because they are detrimental to his case. I think it is obvious who has the stronger case here.