Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: Abortion is right

Give me the link again, and if it doesn't have evidence that a newly fertilized egg has a human soul, then you're lying. Saying something is a human being based on the flesh is not scientific, meaning you're full of opinionated shit. And so is the "scientist".I have obviously done far more research on this topic then you, since you are content with sitting on a radical belief. It doesn't matter if something is alive, that does not make it human. A mushroom is alive. Grass is alive. But we still step on mushrooms and mow our lawns.You haven't been listening to my point from the beginning. You don't listen... listen listen listen. I know exactly what the pro-life stance on abortion is, but you know nothing about what my stance is, because you obviously have not been paying attention even slightly. That, or you're completely insane.There is a moral middle ground for everything. I am not sitting on the fence. I am not pro-abortion because I don't believe in abortion after a certain stage in the pregnancy. Who the heck am I? No one. But a doctor can tell her when her fetus has brain waves. A doctor can tell her, therefore, when a fetus is a conscious human being. If she cannot see the logical difference between killing something that is conscious and something that is not conscious, then I would never trust her to know what the difference is between smashing a rock and killing a newborn baby. So no, it's not personally what I think even a little. It's basic logic that you seem to lack or deny out of faulty religious principle. I am going to point this out one last time about my observations over abortion: science does not prove that a human soul beings at conception. Science does, on the other hand, prove that a consciousness emerges at a certain stage in the pregnancy. The soul is not measured by existence, it is measured by the brain, by the conscious being. To say that a human has a soul because it's flesh exists is like saying that an ant has a soul because it crawls on your kitchen floor, but that's not going to stop you from murdering it with Raid. This is very balanced thinking. The fact that I don't believe in the mother's rights after a certain point instead of at all times means I am not one-sided, like you. If I am not one-sided, then what am I? I'm in between the two radical opinions because neither of them is balanced. Pro-choice is hypocritical and pro-life is hypocritical. Both are illogical because neither factor in circumstance. You want to know why my observations of abortion are so confusingly in between? Because I factor in circumstance and humanity. You do not. I have not once disputed that a fetus is not alive, I have disputed that it is not human until a certain point. So, I'm going to say this one last time: you have yet to prove that a fetus is human before is has a consciousness. You dodge and you block and you spew meaningless jargon at me that has no relation to anything I'm saying. You haven't proved me wrong once; once.Now stop spewing crap at me and explain why a fetus, logically, has a soul at every stage of the pregnancy, consciousness or not. Only when you can logically prove that a fetus has a soul before it has a consciousness that you will ever come anywhere near proving me wrong. So far, you have said nothing that means anything towards disputing me. Maybe you're dumbfounded and not paying attention to a single word I'm saying. But I've pretty much explained it thoroughly, so if you can't get it this time, it's obvious that you're extremely slow.