A real debate on abortion

You have pointed out that I have some logically fallacies. I think we can agree that what I have said was true, however, you are correct in telling me to revise my arguments so they are logically correct. My point in the first statement was that it does not matter in either case; they are both an individual human. Let us think, what could possibly be wrong with killing an unborn child? What could be wrong with killing a child outside the womb? Why does the womb negate the child's right to live? I gave you an example earlier. A mother killing or not caring for her one-year-old is committing either murder or child abuse or both. Here is why abortion is murder: The elements of common law murder are: 1. the killing 2. of a human being 3. by another human being 4. with malice aforethought. [1] The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are: I.Intent to kill, II.Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death, III.Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or IV.Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine). [1] This is murder by the law, and abortion, if the embryo is a human, falls under this category. Now the only way I can state that this type of murder is absolutely wrong, immoral, and unethical is to state that the Bible claims murder should not be done. It is against God. Now, if you do not believe in God, then this is not a legitimate argument. But the problem is, if there is no standard on which to apply morality, then there is no way of saying ANYTHING is wrong. If morality is relative, then I can justify practically anything. There cannot be anything wrong with a starving mother killing her one-year-old because she needs to feed herself. You yourself cannot give any justification of why abortion should be allowed; therefore, it is not right to continue abortion because it is indeed murder. "The point of my first argument is that very little harm is truly being done. ‘Harm' implies a certain amount of self-awareness, or a taking away of something one is aware they once had." harm (plural harms) Injury; hurt; damage; detriment; misfortune. In this definition, there is harm being done in abortion. Even if you say there is no harm done, in this logic, there is nothing wrong with killing a person in a coma. Even worse, there is no harm with killing your neighbor in their sleep because they are not self-aware. Even if they are self-aware, even if there is no "harm" done, it does not justify killing the human. "I am saying that if I know I cannot care for something that is not yet born, I have the right to choose that it never be born." True, you can choose. But the choice is NOT: instead of letting the person die, we kill the person. There is no justification. If you cannot care for a child, you can choose the following, (1) not to have sex, (2) prevent fertilization, (3) adoption. Murder is not one of these options. "If I am their primary life and caregiver, yes. This is actually quite common in the animal kingdom -- if a mother or father cannot properly care for their young, they will kill all or the weakest of them." If the mother is the primary caregiver, she should care for her child. Using animals as an example is irrelevant because animals do plenty of things that humans consider immoral, unlawful, unethical, etc. Reptiles eat their children. Which brings us to your questions 1. What makes one form of killing justifiable and another unethical? We can know the answer by having a standard for ethics, by the law, or by consulting your conscience. The law is by far the weakest of these, but it is the only standard a moral relativist can live by. Or that of their conscience which no one can prove. 2. How does abortion fit into the unethical side? The law states it is wrong. Abortion is legal because the government has shied away from the definition of a human life. I have shown otherwise. God says it is wrong by simply stating you shall not murder. Your conscience tells you that murder is wrong. This cannot be proven so disregard it in your argument, but you know it is true. 3. Do you believe it is moral to bring a child into an environment in which they will not be stable, nurtured or cared for? No I do not. This is called child neglect or child abuse. But it is not justifiable to kill the child. 4. What significant differences do you see between humans and other mammals? Skyscrapers, scientists, clothes, pain in childbirth, vehicles, art, emotion, mathematics, kindness, hate, sports, packaged food, philosophers, morality, law, music, the computer you are typing this on, etc. Physically we are made of the same things, but otherwise humans and animals are totally different. Of course if you are an evolutionist, you have other beliefs. I would like to say one more thing - often in such a debate, the subject of rape, incest, deformities, etc. come into question. These questions don't address the fundamental ethics of abortion, but they do introduce a host of difficult variables. Let's take rape for instance. The girl never meant to have a child. However, this child still has a right to life. Abortion and rape are both acts of violent assault against an innocent victim, and one wrong does not justify another. Thank you, that is all I have to say. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...