Abortion is Murder

I would like to begin by reaffirming the emotional sensitivity of this topic. My hope is to have a respectful and constructive discussion without offending or angering either side. I would also like to once again clarify that we will not be discussing cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. Murder is intentionally ending another human life, which most people agree is wrong. Most people would also agree that abortion is the intentional termination of a pregnancy before birth. Of course, there are many other definitions we could use, but my opponent and I have agreed to the two described above, and I believe they are reasonably accurate for our purposes here. There are obviously cases when intentionally ending a human life is not considered wrong, such as war or self-defense. By our definition, however, those cases are still murder, they are simply socially acceptable versions of it. Since we are not debating the level of social acceptability, I hope we can both agree that such cases are irrelevant to this debate. With this in mind, the question we must answer is whether the intentional termination of a pregnancy ends a human life. If it does, then abortion is murder according to our definitions. To answer this question, I will first examine multiple different definitions of life across numerous disciplines and determine if an unborn child can be included within each definition. I will start with the dictionary. Several definitions of life according the Merriam-Webster dictionary are: 1) The ability to grow, change, etc. , that separates plants and animals from things like water or rocks 2) The quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body 3) An organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction Starting with the first definition, we must ask if a fetus has the ability to grow and change. The answer is undoubtedly yes. In most cases, pregnancy tests cannot detect a pregnancy until week 4 or later. By this time, a fertilized egg has already implanted in the uterus and is dividing cells. From the very earliest moment a woman can know she's pregnant, a fertilized egg has already begun to grow and change. Therefore, it fits our first definition of life. For the second definition, we must determine if an embryo is distinguishable from a dead body. The answer is again yes. A dead body decays, performs no system functions, and does not grow. An embryo does not decay, performs basic system functions (like an independently beating heart at week 5), and grows. It seems an embryo fulfills this definition as well. For definition number three, does an unborn child possess the capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction? Yes. An unborn child absorbs and metabolizes nutrients, grows, and can detect light, sound, and touch stimuli while in the womb. While they obviously cannot reproduce, they begin developing sex organs within a few weeks and females produce eggs during week 16. They are growing the capability to reproduce, which will not be fully actualized until puberty. Once again, an unborn child seems to fit into the definition of life. Let's move on to other categorical definitions. Medically, life is defined as: The energy that enables organisms to grow, reproduce, absorb and use nutrients, and evolve, and, in some organisms, to achieve mobility, express consciousness, and demonstrate a voluntary use of the senses [1]. Do the unborn possess this energy? Yes. What about in the realm of astrophysics? Astronomers find it more difficult to define life because they must consider the possibility of its existence in conditions unknown to Earth. However, we do have some attempts. Astrobiologist Benton Clark of the University of Colorado proposes that life involves three factors: "Life reproduces, and life uses energy. These functions follow a set of instructions embedded within the organism" [2]. The "set of instructions" Clark refers to is DNA or something similar. NASA observes that life as we know it on earth tends to be complex, absorbs energy from its environment, synthesizes absorbed energy into growth and reproductive capability, and reacts to stimuli [3]. Once again, unborn embryos/fetuses meet each one of these characteristics in some capacity. While they cannot reproduce themselves, their cells do (this is how they grow), indicating that they indeed consist of living cells. They absorb energy from their environment (the mother) and synthesize that energy into growth. They possess DNA, and they react to stimuli. I submit, therefore, that the unborn meet an astrophysical definition of life as well. This is all fairly uncontroversial though. Few people would deny that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a living organism. The real question is: is it a human life? After all, stepping on a spider is not typically considered murder; that category is reserved for human lives only. There are biological and philosophical considerations that can help us answer this question. Biologically, humans have 46 chromosomes with DNA specific to the Homo Sapiens species. All 46 chromosomes, as well as the human specific DNA that comes with them, are present in the zygote the moment fertilization occurs. According to the book Human Embryology & Teratology, "fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. .. . The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. [4]" Even if an abortion happens immediately after pregnancy can first be confirmed (4 weeks), the embryo has already begun developing a brain, spinal cord, and heart. By week 6, the arms, legs, eyes, and bones develop. The heart also begins beating [5]. These are all distinctly human features. The brains and spines of the unborn do not belong to some separate, sub-human species. They are genetically fully Homo Sapien, just at an early stage of development. Philosophically, in order to call an embryo "non-human" or "not yet fully human," we must be able to identify some point at which it does become fully human. This distinction is very difficult to make unless you draw it at the moment of birth. But even drawing the line at birth presents philosophical and logical problems. Is a baby really not fully human until the second it leaves the womb? What about after leaving the womb but before the umbilical cord is cut? What about after the cord is cut, since the baby is still completely dependent on others for survival and its brain is still not developed? I am interested to hear my opponent's distinction of when human life begins, if not at conception. To conclude, I submit my definition of human life as: "A collection of living cells containing all 46 human chromosomes and complete human DNA that, if kept alive and healthy, will eventually develop into a mature human capable of reproducing with other humans. " Therefore, ending such a life intentionally is murder. Yes, I fully realize there are genetic and sexual defects that do not fit this definition, but I would direct any critics to the word "most" in Round 1. While there are always exceptions, I believe this definition reasonably describes most human life on Earth. I look forward to Con"s opening arguments. [1] Mosby"s Medical Dictionary (8th Edition, Elsevier, 2009). [2] . http://www.astrobio.net............ [3] . http://www.nasa.gov............'s_working_definition.html [4] O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 8-29 [5] . http://www.nlm.nih.gov............