Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-CHOICE

You keep making counter-arguments based on examples outside of what I am referring to. I am not talking about any zygote. We could argue in circles all year with various banter to this degree.I am referring to the specific zygote that results from the fertilization event after intercourse, between two human beings.So artificially inseminated women can get abortions and clones can be aborted now. Where's your irrational bleeding heart now?I'm not talking about an animal or genetically engineered cells or whatever crazy outlandish example that you keep pulling out of your arse.This isn't 1950, and medical science isn't like the old Frankenstein movies of the old days. Mammalian cloning has been done many times in the past, and cell biology is a maturing science that allows the techniques I disclosed as a matter of common practice. Human cloning isn't special, it's just presently illegal.Correction: fully grown humans are defined by that. Those humans had to go through a growing stage before they gained all of the abilities that you mentioned. During that growth, they are not fully grown but are still human life.Again wrong. Babies and toddlers have a very simple capacity to reason, think and grow. This is afterall why they can learn language and our culture.I am not concerned with it because the premise of my argument is indifferent with relation to the law. I am strictly dealing with morality. It use to be legal to own people. Thank goodness people didn't take the position that you are taking.Oh yes, I remember slavery. Back in those days the Negroes were considered inferior creations, descended from god's disfavoured, cast-away people. It was thought that our moral duty was to own them because we could elevate them from their primitive culture and bring them some form of civilisation. To do otherwise, to let them have ownership of their own bodies was considered the same as allowing them to return to laziness and unproductivity.Just another one of history's great examples of what happens when morals are imposed upon people without their consent for their greater good.You still have failed to disprove what I said. We may have an idea, but as I stated before, technically, we do not know at what point a fetus becomes self aware. The exact moment of self-awareness is extremely important if you want to prove your argument, but you simply cannot do so. You wrote a check that your mind couldn't cash.I thought it was obvious, but I'll try again since you seem to need help here:At what point does a fetus respond to stimuli? At what point toes it show signs of memory? At what point does it have a central nervous system? Answer all three questions and you have a reasonable cut-off period for abortions, or at least a decent argument for one.Sure it matters. One method is natural and another method is unnatural. I don't advocate human cloning either, even though that could result in more human life.I'll repeat myself: unnatural versus natural means squat. Find a logical distinction, and don't rely purely on what feels good.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacyYour argument to my point that all cells have the potential for life as a fetus does, is something like "but it's not natural!!!"http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html(checkmate)I never said anything about the zygote having a soul. My position is that it is human life, therefore to end that life at any point should be considered murder. You might want to do more research.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extractionhttp://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/ 3500603.html http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm In other words, PBA (Intact dilation and extraction) accounts for under 1% of abortions as of 2000, and about 5% as of 2003.In other words your argument that babies' brains are being sucked out is a peripheral one that does not cover the main issue: the vast majority of abortions don't abort fetuses with brains, but instead embryos.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Prenatal_development_table.svg/1000px-Prenatal_development_table.svg.png I'm not concerned with you bizarre hypothetical that completely ignores that basis of which we have been debating on. At no point did I say sperm or a woman's eggs were human life. The conjoining of the 2 in a fertilization event which results in a zygote is human life. (Naturally through intercourse)Your argument that embryos and fetuses are human lives is as absurd as my "bizarre hypothetical" and what's more your position is backed almost exclusively by religious agenda and not reason, again like my "bizarre example."I have a question for you: if you care so deeply about embryos and young fetuses being aborted (the vast majority of abortions fall under this, after all) why aren't you setting up adoption centres that give money to couples who choose to have the child instead of abort it? Why aren't you donating time and effort to foster services? Why aren't you looking for research teams, or developing research teams to find ways to emulate a uterus for incubating embryos?In other words at the moment you're just being an opinionated jackoff who isn't DOING anything to help the situation. You have a feeling, an opinion that somehow an embryo deserves equal rights as a human being, but you're not showing an inkling of care for the women that must suffer if your opinion had any weight.And I ridicule you and everyone who thinks like you do. You inject new, fabricated, unrealistic hypotheticals into the debate and expect it to make sense. You can try to justify abortion all you want by bringing animals and artificial matters into the discussion but it is painfully obvious that you are searching frantically for an excuse to allow the taking of innocent human life.I expect it to make sense because I figured that you had the intelligence to imagine your argument taken to its logical extremes. I don't have to wring my hands and sweat over the treatment of fetuses, zygotes and embryos as less than human because I genuinely do not feel anything towards them. Your attempts to elicit emotion by conflating fetuses with infants also does nothing to me because I feel no emotion towards them either. We may as well be discussing the building of a fence.