Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

About Ad hominem, Let's say all the nasty things about me are true and much worse. What does that tell us about my claim? nothing. It only says something about me and is therefore irrelevant to the question at hand. So what if I'm logically unsound and have obvious character weaknesses? does that mean I'm therefore incapable of saying anything truthful? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So to say because of this therefore that I think is a a non sequitur. And since recycling is a good thing I'll say it again. Insult is not an argument, it's a failure to provide one. Now your free to use them if you like but they don’t carry much weight with me; I really am much worse than you think.Now at the end of the day, morals and righteousness are all about survival of the species.If that is true, then you are mistaken when you said Killing a grown kid is murder Because that means at some point it would become a good thing to kill grown kids when it is necessary for the survival of the species or to foster a peaceful productive society. But who decides what is good for the species, how do you define good, good for who?But to my question "can I kill it" Your answer tells me that you instinctively know that there is something inherently wrong with murder and that it ought not be done. You recognize that there is something about murder that makes it wrong. And that wrongness is a characteristic of the act and not the peoples opinion of it. Gassing six million Jews was wrong even if the Germans thought it was good. You know that and so do I. But if that is the case then your premise of morals and righteousness being about survival of the species would be false because the wrongness of the act proceeds our perception of it and is independent of us. It is objectively wrong. And further more how did it come to be that survival of the species was the good to be obtained? Because in your scheme it could have been otherwise. In your scheme it would appear to be that there really is no such thing as the good or the wrong. Because if your correct, like I’ve said, we could have just as well decided that killing grown kids is a good thing. But when we see kids butchered or any other injustice in the world something cries out within us that what we see is wrong. And we know it’s wrong because we know there is a good from which it deviates. And your definition of that good ( survival of the human species) is woefully inadequate to account for that kind of reaction. Because If you were to see someone gunned downed I seriously don't think you are saying to yourself; Hey, we as a society need that person you therefore shouldn't do that. No I think not, your gut reaction is; Whoa! that's not right...what the... We don't make laws to make things wrong, we make laws because we know that somethings are inherently wrong, they are wrong in and of themselves, like murder, theft and disrespecting people; especially our elders. But what I think is more telling is the way you discriminate on the basis of level of development. Notice how you use the phrase “grown kid” So I ask you what’s the difference between a human in the womb and a human at the park? Level of development. The terms fetus and grown child describe the stages of development in the life of a human in this case. So when the life of a human is unjustly taken be it at 1 month after conception, 1 month after birth or 10 years of age it is wrong, that’s called moral clarity. That’s why the question “can I kill it” is so clarifying. It’s the last word, it, that makes all the difference. What is it, is an ontological question. I’m not asking the question, what’s its stage of development. That would be absurd to answer the question that way. You would never answer your kid that way. Hey daddy, can I kill it? Well son, how old is it, you know the younger the better. But that’s how you try and answer the question of abortion. I keep asking, what is it that we are killing? And you keep telling me how old it is, well it’s just at the fetus stage. OK, so what is it? And like I’ve said before; a question not properly answered doesn’t go away, it keeps getting asked. So I will keep asking the question, what is it? Till I get an adequate answer. But honestly you know as well as I do what it is and the only reason you would answer differently is if you were trying to justify something that you instinctively know to be wrong.  Final thought on showing everyone that your opposition is incapable of making sound judgments. You said; the human species is in no danger whatsoever of being extinct, so society hasn't seen fit to mandate saving every chance of adding to its membership.This statement from you destroys your whole argument. If this is true, why are there still laws against murder? And why are there hospitals? Why did the President just pass a massive health care reform bill? if we are in no danger whatsoever of being extinct what are we so concerned about? If our survival is not in question then what is the basis for our actions? It can't be survival of the human species, were doing that quite well. So what then is it if it's not survival of the human species? Maybe somethings are actually objectively wrong, maybe human life is valuable and maybe we know it.