Abortion should be legal.

Thank you for your response.No direct evidence?Pro claimed that there is no direct evidence to prove that the unborn is a human being. I didn't give any direct evidences to prove that the fetus is a human being in my second round, because I didn't think Pro would dispute this fact. Apparently, quoting two pro-choice philosophers and giving a site which presents several quotations from medical experts in the field of embryology who all confirms the fact that the fetus is a human being, wasn't enough to convince Pro that the fetus is a human being. I will therefore in what follows now give three direct evidences to prove that the unborn is a human being.Evidence 1: The fetal development of the unborn When we look at the unborn's development, we can clearly see that it is a human being. After just three months, you would be able to see your unborn baby's arms and legs moving. The unborn's heart and all major organs is completed. Its face is well formed as well, and looks like a baby.[1] I don't even want to mention how the unborn is at its 7-8 months of development. Moreover, when you look at the images of the unborn and its development, you can clearly see that it is a very little human being. Its body is completely recognizable to a human body. It has the same heart, arms, legs, face, eyes, ears, and mouth as we have. Its body is only a little bit smaller and less developed compared to us fully developed humans, but we can clearly see that it is a human body, unlike a lion body or rabbit body. Images of the unborn and its development can be seen on this site. [2]Evidence 2: The law of biogenesisWe can also know that the fetus is a human being because they are the product of human parents. Creatures only reproduce after their own kind, as we very clearly know from the law of biogenesis.[3] To determine what kind of a being the unborn is, we only need to look at its parents. If the parents are human, then the unborn is human as well.Evidence 3: GeneticsLastly, we know from science that the unborn has a genetic human code with everything from eye color to sex already determined.[4] What is so amazing with this is that all humans have the same human genetic code, while other species have their own genetic code. For example, the genetic code of a dog is different from the genetic code of a bird or us humans. If you are a lion, then you have a genetic lion code. But if you are a human being, then you have a genetic human code. Indeed, the fact that the unborn has a genetic human code (unlike the genetic code of, for example, a dog or a bird), is strong evidence that it is a human being and member of the human species. Now, it may be asked: Is the unborn a organism in its own right, or a part of another organism? The answer is clear: The unborn is a organism in its own right; that is, it is not a part of their mother's body or any other organism. From the moment of conception, the unborn is a individual organism which is actively developing itself to the next stage along the maturation process of human organism.It must be noted that a 'human being' is defined as 'Any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens; a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species.' [5] There is no doubt that the unborn is a human being because it is a member of our species. To say that the unborn isn't a human being and not even a part of our species - despite all the evidence which I have given above - is to go beyond absurdity.Peter Singer and David BooninRecall that I quoted two pro-choice philosophers (Peter Singer and David Boonin) saying that they accept that the fetus is a human being. How did Pro respond to this? He responded by saying that he don't believe Peter Singer is going by his ideological philosophies if he really said what I quoted him saying. But so what? Does it matter if he goes against his ideological philosophies or not by saying that the fetus is a human being? Even if we assume that Pro is right, in no way would this change the fact that Peter Singer, a pro-choice philosopher, clearly stated that the fetus is a human being. It doesn't matter if he "goes against his ideological philosophies" by saying that the unborn is a human being, nor is it wrong to go against your previous flawed beliefs in order to tell the actual truth. Concerning David Boonin, Pro said that it seems like he's been struck with the same political disease as Peter singer has. Sure, that's fine. However, this doesn't matter. Again, even if we assume that Pro is right, in no way would this change the fact that David Boonin, a pro-choice philosopher, clearly stated that the fetus is a human being.Now, why did these pro-choice philosophers say that the fetus is a human being, although it may be true that they did go against their ideological philosophies by saying this? The answer is obvious: Science - as I have clearly showed - makes it very clear that a fetus is a human being, and not many pro-choice philosophers can deny this fact. The problem for most pro-choice philosophers is not that the fetus is a human being, but that it isn't a person. Thus, there is no wrong in killing the fetus. However, the argument that it is not wrong to kill the fetus because it is not a person, is a very flawed argument. I will refute this argument if Pro chooses to present and defend this it.Contradicting myself?Recall that Pro, in his first round, said that "The legality behind abortion is very clear. Our "unalienable rights" -- as implicitly stated in the Constitution -- ensure us "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." In responding to this, I said 'That's exactly right. However, the right to life, liberty and happiness, is something which the fetus should be given too, because as I have clearly showed, the fetus is also a human being.'Now, Pro asked me if I am trying to contradict myself by saying this. I want to ask Pro a question: How exactly was I trying to contradict myself by saying this?Not alive?Pro said, 'Exacly, sir, woman wouldn't be given the right to "(...) kill an innocent human being" -- if indeed it is "true" that an UNBORN fetus, that is NOT ALIVE, is not a human being.' I really cannot understand what Pro is trying to say here. However, Pro is completely wrong in saying that an unborn fetus is not alive. The fetus is of course alive, because it grows. Something which isn't alive doesn't grow.The resolution remains negated._______Sources[1] http://www.justmommies.com... This site nicely explains the development of the unborn from its first month to its last.[2] http://www.priestsforlife.org...[3] http://www.onenesspentecostal.com...[4] http://www.ncregister.com...[5] http://liveactionnews.org...