Abortion takes the life of a distinct, living, whole human being

I will now provide a rebuttal for my opponents case. He starts off by stating that in 1859 the American Medical Association stated "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth as a living being" was a scientific truth. Not only does he not give a source for this, but it is woefully outdated. Currently the AMA takes no stance whatsoever on the ethicality of abortion. [1] "Nothing has changed since that time. For the past 150 years doctors have known that life begins at conception." You are either lying or ignorant. Neither bodes well for your case. (a) Outdated source, (1968) and an appeal to authority fallacy. [2] This source doesn't present the evidence that led to it coming to this conclusion. (b) Outdated source, (1975) and and an appeal to authority fallacy. (c) Appeal to authority fallacy. (Not sure when this came out as the Senate case appears to be cited twice. (d) Outdated source, (1981) and if you had actually read a proper summary of the case you would have seen that no decision was made and that another hearing was held in 1982. [3] This brings up further question towards my opponents honesty in this debate. I could not find a transcript/summary of this case, but if it did pass to place life on the fetus then I doubt that we would be having this debate. (e) Outdated source, (1933) and appeal to authority fallacy. (Also it' really silly to cite someones opinion after they change it and has an organization against that opinion named after them.) [4] (f) This source is not outdated. Hooray! (2008) Unfortunately for you however I have already shown that scientifically each fetus is not unique. (Yes I know about Pros rebuttal, and I will attack it thoroughly later.) (g) Somewhat outdated, (1993) and doesn't actually support Pros case. "The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." This says nothing about whole or distinct, (or any synonym of the words) and while it does imply that something is living that thing is a zygote not a human being. This is really just more evidence for my case. (h) Somewhat outdated, (1996) and an appeal to authority fallacy. "perhaps my opponent would have us believe that there is no difference in kind between a human embryo and each of our cells (such as sperm or egg)." I never make this claim. "Dr. Maureen Condic points out that embryos are living human beings 'precisely because they possess the single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of death - the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living cells.' " This is bad biology. Humans are not the only coordinated organisms. [5] This link provides information about the Chimpanzee. One of only many other coordinated animals. "In conclusion then, it is the unanimous contention of both medical science and the science of embryology that the unborn are human." No it isn't the unanimous contention. There is no scientific consensus on when life begins. Biologist Scott Gilbert, an expert in human development, tells us that there are at least four distinct moments that can be thought of as the beginning of human life. Each can be said to be biologically accurate.[6] There is a scientific consensus on when life begins, fertilization, but when human life begins is a whole other story. 1. https://ssl3.ama-assn.org... 2. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 3. http://digital.library.unt.edu... 4. http://www.guttmacher.org... 5. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com... 6. http://www.thesurvivaldoctor.com...