Newly revealed natural scientific laws govern the morality of abortion

Again, all of Con's points fail. Con challenged "If the unborn is not human, then abortion would be morally permissible. If the unborn is human, then killing them because they are unwanted is cruel and barbaric." ---But no, that is not the point of this debate.---- The point as shown by the "Law of Hindered Birth" is that if the "future child" predicted by the law is human; then it is cruel and barbaric to kill the future child. The "Law of Hindered Birth" is in fact true. So the real issue here is if the future child predicted by the Law is a human. I have proven already that it is a real human. Lets review: The "Law of Hindered Birth" is about what is possible, not what the results will be or if a wanted birth will in fact be realized. It only deals with what is possible. So any explanation of the law must only deal with what is possible. Why is the wanted child a real living human? If a woman wants to have a child in the future, she will likely find a mate and try intentionally over and over again to become pregnant with that mate until she is successfully pregnant. This is prima facie true as seen in all human populations. If the woman conceives a wanted conception, then the odds of an actual born child coming from that conception is the same for her with a wanted child as the odds are for an unwanted child. Nature shows that only a small number of conceptions end in a pregnancy. So she will likely have some failed conceptions. Usually, she will continue to seek a wanted child and continue to attempt pregnancy. She will likely become pregnant. However as shown by statistics she can still have a miscarriage or stillbirth. Perhaps her pregnancy will fail again. She will likely try again for another wanted child. She will likely become pregnant again. Usually a woman will at some time in her life become pregnant with a wanted child and carry that child full term until birth. Prior to birth, there is still a chance that the fetus will die and be miscarried or stillborn. Once a woman has a birth that is successful then and only then has she proven the "Law of Hindered Birth's" theory that a wanted child is almost certain. So the proof that a future wanted child will be born is in the fact that people do in fact have wanted children that are born after several attempts. Because women will try over and over again in order to become pregnant, and actually give birth, a wanted and willing pregnancy will result in a real child even though it is called a potential child. Why is the unwanted fetus only tissue? The unwanted fetus is only tissue because we do not know if in fact it will be born. Unlike the wanted child the unwanted child is not likely to become a real human. One can never say prior to birth, that it is a living human, because we cannot know if it will remain alive. In fact the proof I have posted shows that the fetus may only have a 21 percent chance of being born. Let's see how the "Law of Hindered Birth" controls the situation. In the law, a forced birth precludes a willing birth. Con believes that the unwanted fetus is a real human. So what happens if the forced fetus could for certain be called a real human? That would not in fact change anything. If the forced fetus is a real living human and is forced into birth, the wanted child would still not be born and would lose the opportunity for life. But the fact is that the forced fetus is not in fact a living human because we cannot know for sure that it will in fact live to be born. It suffers from the same hardships as the wanted conception. For example, it is likely that the forced conception will never live past the first few days. And thereafter a person can never be certain it will not miscarry. And if it does not miscarry it may in fact become stillborn. So until the day of birth, if there is a successful birth, we cannot know for certain that the fetus will be a living human. As explained earlier, DNA is like computer code, until the code is completely run, we cannot be certain that there is a living human. To recap: The unwanted conception will only have one chance at life. People will not intentionally try over and over for an unwanted child. That one chance results in a birth rate of about 21 percent of conceptions. The unwanted fetus, though actually in place, has a small chance of being born. The wanted fetus has the greatest chance of actually being born. Why, because if the first conception fails, the couple will try over and over until successful. Therefore if a person forces the unwanted fetus into life one can quite reasonably be assured that they have caused the demise of a wanted child. Therefore choosing to be pro life is a barbaric and inhumane choice because humans -must- live under the "Law of Hindered Birth". There is no option. And there is no way around the "Law of Hindered Birth" any more than there is a way around any other laws of nature. The only moral and reasonable thing a person can do is to reject the ideas of the pro life movement. Con asserts that the unwanted fetus is human, as in a human being. No one disputes that the unwanted unborn is human tissue. There is a large dispute that has existed for centuries as to whether the z/e/f is a living human being. There is no natural law that governs the issue of human tissue vs human being. It is simply unsupported opinion. It does not matter, the "Law of Hindered Birth" makes the point moot. It does not matter if the unwanted fetus is human tissue or human life, because saving either unwanted tissue or unwanted life leads to the death of an indisputably real human life. Con admits the validity of the new "Law of Hindered Birth". The law is a natural law of nature and will always operate as shown. Con's ideas are not natural law and have only divided support. While some people may think Con's ideas are valid, most do not. And even those that agree with Con admit that the moment of conception is simply a part of the cycle of life. However natural laws like the "Law of Hindered Birth" are always valid, always operable and always have consequences. - Logically speaking, if a natural law conflicts with a person's idea, then the law would always win out over the idea that is unproven.- Con's ideas are simply that, ideas. They are unproven even by Con's embryologists. Other scientists disagree with Con's ideas. No one can disagree with the "Law of Hindered Birth". And any idea that conflicts with the law is invalid. Con's ideas are not backed by natural law. There is no natural law that proves Con's zygote is a baby or human being. It is simply an opinion, nothing more. The "law of hindered birth" is fact and proves that if you attempt to save the tissue of the unwanted fetus you will cause the loss of a fully developed and wanted child. This new law changes everything. Prior to the law even a weak pro life excuse that claimed it was "life at conception" made a little sense. If there was a doubt, then the excuse was that one should err on the side of life and save the fetus. Now the fact is that if there is doubt one should err on the side of the wanted child. And the reason is simple. A wanted child has a much greater chance of surviving until birth than an unwanted child. Women will try again and again for a wanted child. And likewise they will avoid the unwanted child. So forcing the birth of an unwanted child denies life to a wanted child. The law proves that there is no way to avoid this consequence. I have proven and Con has not successfully disputed that the "Law of Hindered Birth" is true and it follows that the wanted child is much more likely to be born than the unwanted child. Anyone can see that if a woman is forced to give birth to unwanted tissue she can lose a wanted child. There is no life saved by forcing birth. Con's challenge is met, the fetus in not a human and the the potential child from the "Law of Hindered Birth" is a living human being.