Abortion in the embryonic period is not necessarily immoral

I thank Con for their thoughtful replyCorrectionWhen I went to give warrant for the 3rd premise the heading it was under reads "3) It is not necessarily immoral to destroy something that possess human DNA". Obviously this is a mistake, the heading for the warrant should be the same as the premise as first stated. So there is no confusion I say again the third premise of my argument is "3) It is not necessarily immoral to destroy something that is human ""1) If something contains human DNA then it is humanCon off the bat says..."Saying that the unborn is a human being, and arguing that anything with human DNA, is equivocation."I never said the unborn are human beings or to be more exact I never said that zygote or blastocyst or embryo are human beings, so how does this point even if true apply to my argument ?Con continues..."You are moving from using "human" as a noun (e.g. an embryo is a human), to using it as an adjective (e.g. skin cells are human). So the argument that skin cells are human does not negate a zygote or embryo, etc., from being considered a full member of Homo sapiens"I described what I mean't as saying something is human as the same as saying it possesses human DNA. Consider for example detectives investigating a crime scene, they find some drops of blood, of course the question is going to be..."is it human ? by that they mean, is the blood human blood, and in order to be human blood this is determined by examination of the DNA. If I have trespassed on English rules of nouns and adjectives, as long as my fundamental point is still in tact Pro is free to change my wording, cause I don't see the transgression.Con says..."Embryologists do not consider zygotes and embryos human in the sense that a skin cell is human, but they consider them a new genetically distinct human organism."I was to ask an embryologists is human blood human ? is there answer going to be anything other than yes ? They are not going to say its not human now are they.2) Abortion in the embryonic period destroys something that is humanCon says..."Abortion destroys something is is of the human species, not merely "human" as a body part."I have been quite clear what I mean by saying something is human. As such abortion does destroy something human in the sense I have explained it.I can grant that abortion destroys a human organism and therefore destroys something classified as homo sapien, but of course its still "human" in the sense I explained it. As Wikipeida explains... "In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases, this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche" [1] 3) It is not necessarily immoral to destroy something that is human Con says..."Ms. Arthur also argues that human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. But by whose definition? Her own?"Well lets look at some of the reasons that human beings must be separate inviduals as Joyce explains... "Further, the wide variety of laws throughout the world were written specifically to protect born human beings and their property. There is virtually no legal precedent for applying such laws to fetuses. Even when abortion was illegal, it had a lesser punishment than for murder, and was often just a misdemeanor. The anti-choice view of fetuses as human beings is therefore a novel and peculiar one, with little historical or legal precedent to back it up. "Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can't hire someone else to do it." "Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals" [2] Con says..."Pro-lifers do not argue that embryos are potential humans. They are potential toddlers, but actual humans. So potentiality is irrelevant." In the sense that I defined what it means to say something is human, I already granted that embryos are human. Con says..."Killing a human embryo is wrong because you are killing an actual human being, already in existence."I don't grant that just because something is human it must mean its a human being, as such Pro will have to justify this claim. Con says..."Killing a human embryo is not wrong simply because it possesses human DNA. It is wrong because you are killing a human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, who has an inherent right to live"How does being classified as homo sapiens get something an inherent right to life ? Con says..."If you support killing a human embryo, you must also support killing a human fetus or a newborn for the same reason,"Oh really ? Even if we grant the right to life for children, it doesn't then follow that an embryo gets the same right too.Con has not made the case that the right to life extends to the point of overriding a persons bodily rights. As such I reject the claim that to support/allow abortion means you must support/allow children to be killed.C) Therefore abortion in the embryonic period is not necessarily immoral Second argument in defense of abortion, Bodily rightsCon says..."First, in this analogy you are a product of violence. You are kidnapped and forced to be connected to this person. However, the vast majority of pregnancies are through a consensual act between two people. To create a human being through an act that is consensual only to kill that individual is irresponsible and barbaric."Is this a concession from Con that abortion is morally permissible in the case of rape ? Con says.."In the same way, you are responsible for a child you create through the intimate act of sexual intercourse."How does consent to sexual intercourse rule out a woman's bodily right ? This is never justified, only implied.I think Cliff Stamp puts it well where he argues... "But here is the critical point here, KeytarHero has, in his defense of the rights of the unborn, completely ignored the rights of the mother and again this is critical to establishing the burden of proof for rights are meaningless when considered in isolation. Simply consider the following thought experiment:" Right now KeytarHero is likely spending resources for his own personal benefit, however at the same time 1 out of 5 children in Africa is starving while Indonesia has over 60% of the total number of wasting children in the world. The total numbers are staggering, each year 15 million children die due to lack of food and then of course there are all the other issues such as the high rates of child mortality due to malaria and HIV/AIDS in Africa. Now the question to be raised here is why is KeytarHero not obligated to allocate his resources to save them, especially when things like a mosquito net costs less than a dollar? If he can refute this with "they are my resources I can do what I want with them – even if my choices cause another person to die" (these children are persons by any definition) then how can it be so trivially argued that a mother can not claim a right to their own person resources, i.e., their body? [3] I look forward to Cons reply [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.abortionaccess.info...[3] http://www.debate.org...