Performing Abortions Should be Illegal

My position is stated in my conclusion and title; "there is no moral case for a medical professional to terminate a foetus unless it may either be proven the foetus is not alive["]". The assumption: if it is immoral to kill a foetus it should also be illegal. The prior arguments show this. If Thoht read better before replying he may have spared his blush. Thoht guesses human DNA is the reason I assume a human life is valuable. It isn't, Nor is it required by my argument (shown later). He claims human DNA has no value alone. I concur and never disagreed. 1st irrelevant strawman. Contrary to Thoht"s implication I stated brain function is the primary indicator for death and applied it. 2nd irrelevant strawman. Even allowing brain activity only begins between 8 & 16 weeks my argument holds. I show life must be assumed until proven otherwise so since abortion after week 8 ends human life it is immoral. He doesn't contest the principle of assumed life so he must accept it. Yet Thoht provides the number 8 and says abortion up to week 26 is morally neutral. The nature of personhood is controversial and undecided so in given the assumed life principle it should not be considered evidence regarding the beginning of life. Even if we consider personhood it is weak. There are 4 common components to it: self-awareness, Consciousness, Independent thought and memory. If self-awareness is required for life then children under 18 months would not be counted as people. If being conscious is required then you are dead when you sleep. If independent thought is required then mental disabilities reduce the value of a life. If memory is required for life, Alzheimer's renders a person less morally valuable. Yet to kill any of these vulnerable humans is murder by law. So why does Thoht apply a variation of these to abortion law? This assumes he doesn"t wish to argue that killing infants, Sleeping people, Or mentally disabled people is morally "neutral". Thoht misrepresents again by suggesting I can"t tell between "kill" and "murder". I applied the same definitions he gave. It is true there are legal exceptions to allow killing. Is Con sure he wants to compare abortion to killing an enemy combatant? The robber analogy is closer but is still incorrect. The foetus committed no crime against its mother. The scenario applies better to whether or not a woman should kill her would be rapist. False analogy. Thoht claims from the false analogy "abortions are all justified because the foetus is stealing from the mother. " Rubbish. Dependency is not theft. In UK law, "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it["]". This does not apply to dependent children or elderly in family homes after birth so why should it apply before? I covered the issue of pregnancy from consensual sex and rape and Thoht fails to address my reasoning. Instead he pulls a statement out of a hat with no better justification than a false analogy. I addressed bodily autonomy thoroughly under the term self-determination. His term is better and will now be used. I still await an answer. Thoht"s conclusion shifts the burden of proof back despite the uncontested principle of assumed life. Thoht failed to see my plain position that it should be illegal "for a medical professional to terminate a foetus unless either it may be proven the foetus is not alive, Or the mother"s life is imminently at risk. " As a result, He wasted this round asking me to repeat myself. Thoht makes one valid point. Being alive does not always necessitate the right to life in law. I must show in this case it does. First note human/alien/animal distinctions are irrelevant. So what if the moral arguments for the value of a foetus"s life suggest we should not kill apes? Just stop killing apes too. Secondly the legal exception argument is irrelevant. Has the foetus committed crime? No. Death penalty and self-defence don"t apply. Has the foetus threatened life? Not in the cases this debate applies to. Exceptions for war don"t relate. Is the foetus presumed alive? Yes unless Con proves the contrary. Is the foetus human? Yes. What are the differences between a foetus and a protected citizen? Position and paperwork. Does this constitute either practical or moral reason to kill the foetus? No. All arguments to exempt abortion from murder laws have been answered. Performing abortions should be illegal. Thoht must remember for future replies that my argument is applied to the medical professional performing the abortion, Not the mother. He must also remember the very rare case of choice between mother"s life and foetus"s life is exempt from the arguments of both sides thus far. For the purpose of debate I will allow 8 weeks to be the beginning of brain activity as per his figures. Thus to oppose my argument Thoht must demonstrate that even in the presence of brain activity abortion should be legal.