Newly revealed natural scientific laws govern the morality of abortion

It's not everyday I get to debate with someone who has actually written a book on the topic. I can actually disprove the proposition right now. His proposition states: "Newly revealed scientific laws govern the morality of abortion. " Number one, there is nothing new about this particular "law. " On his own articles, for the "indisputable" abortion law in question, he states: "The 'Law of Hindered Birth' which states that 'A forced birth precludes a willing birth' certainly is and has always been a fact of nature. " As you can see, even he admits that this is not a new natural law. It always has been. This disproves that a newly revealed law governs the morality of abortion. I should also note that these alleged "indisputable" abortion laws are very disputable, and most of them are not laws but opinion. The rest are actually easily disputable. But secondly, it doesn't govern the morality of abortion. The unborn are living humans, which is a fact backed up by science and reason. We are alive because we grow, we are humans because we have human DNA and are the product of human parents. Everything reproduces after their own kind: dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. To state that the unborn is anything other than human is to claim that humans have the inherent capacity to change their species from something non-human into something human. If the unborn are not human, then what are they? Whether the unborn are human or not is at the crux of the issue. If the unborn is not human, then there's really nothing to debate. Abortion would be an acceptable procedure, free of any moral implications. However, if the unborn is human, then no reason to willfully take their life would be sufficient. Not only is the law in question not a new law, but it doesn't govern the morality on abortion. -Rebuttal-Let's look at his law. "The first law: 'If a woman is forced to carry to term one fetus, then she cannot normally become pregnant with another fetus in the same time period. '"Okay, I'm with you so far. "This simple law leads to what I call 'The Law of Hindered Birth'. I shorten the law to say: 'a forced birth precludes a willing birth. ' The theories surrounding the law lead to insight into the moral effect of forcing birth. One theory is that forcing birth of an unwanted child denies life to another potential child. "Okay, here's where you lose me (and I suspect, the vast majority of our readers). There's no life being denied here except the life of the already conceived child. Any other child hasn't even been brought into existence yet, so there's no other life being denied. Now, considering that there's no other life at stake but the life of the unborn child already conceived, what right does this give us to take the life of the "unwanted" child in order to conceive one that's wanted? You have to answer the question of why it's acceptable to take an unborn child's life to conceive another child. Simply because the child is unwanted is not a valid reason. Now, you seem to be assuming a lot here. For instance, 70% of healthy couples get pregnant after nine months of trying. [1] This means that you would probably be aborting the child in vain since it's not very likely she'll get pregnant in that nine month span she'd be pregnant with the unwanted child. You are also assuming that after the woman aborts, she would want to get pregnant again in those nine months. If a woman aborts due to simply not being ready to have a child (a lot of women abort because they want to finish school, get a job, etc. ), this situation is really not likely to change in nine months. Usually girls/women who abort for this reason are young and feel they have their whole lives ahead of them. They probably won't want to get pregnant for another couple years or so. Rape is a horrible crime, one that no woman should ever have to go through. In fact, I think there should be stricter punishment for rapists. But should a child really be punished for his/her father's crimes? Suppose a woman decided to keep her child, believing she can handle it, but by the time the kid became two, he started to really take on the features of the rapist to where she couldn't even stand to look at the child. She now hated the child with her very being for looking like the rapist. Is she now justified in killing that child? Most people would say no. If not, then why? Why should it be acceptable to kill a child in utero for the same reason? In the family who can only afford to raise one child, you're assuming the parents didn't grow to love the child. A lot of parents of unwanted children do love the child as if they were wanted. Also, they can gift the child to a loving family who wants to adopt. I know that can be hard, but isn't this a better alternative than having the child killed? Why would it be harder to give a child away than to have it killed outright? "Also, in forcing birth, a violation of the "Law of Hindered Birth" occurs that condemns the woman to risk her life in pregnancy with a 13 in 100,000 chance of dying and also forces her to "lose" the life of her wanted child. "First, her potential wanted child's life is not being lost, because that life has not been conceived. The only life being lost is the one that's actually in existence. It just seems wrong to me to kill a life that's here to make way for a life that may or may not happen in the span of the next nine months. Secondly, you are overstating matters. Death resulting from pregnancies is pretty rare, considering how many pregnancies are successful and don't result in death. In fact, you're more likely to be killed in a car accident, in which you have a 1 in 6,000 chance of being killed. [2]I have successfully refuted the resolution on three counts: By his own admission, this is not a new law. Also, this "law" does not govern the morality of abortion, whether or not the unborn is human does. Finally, this "law" is simply speculation. Most sexually active couples take more than nine months to get pregnant. Also, keeping an unborn child to term does not take the life of a wanted child, because no wanted child has been conceived. The only life at stake is the unwanted one. I look forward to the Instigator's response. [1] . http://www.babymed.com...;[2] . http://adventure.howstuffworks.com...;