Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

It is a developing human being. If you give it time and nutrition, the zygote will go through all phases attributed to the human species -from a zygote to a fetus, from a fetus to an infant, from an infant to an adult etc. That process ends with death. Calling it a cluster of cells is just a euphemism. Like I said, we're all clusters of cells.The life inside the womb that is being aborted hasn't began to think or feel yet. By cluster of cells I think he means that they aren't much more than that, where you and me are much more than that with the ability to think or feel.  No, I did not say they were persons. I said they were human being just like embryology has said that for decades. I don't care about some socially constructed criterions for rights like personhood, I care about empirical and measurable traits and that is exactly what embryology gives me. The zygote can be considered a distinct human being due to having different DNA from both the mother and the father. The genetic information is complete already since conception. Nothing is added to it.If distinct DNA is what decides something the ability to live then I suppose if we are able to clone you, it is ok to murder you right? After all your DNA isn't so unique anymore. Okay, so you say I'm arguing from potentiality and then you make an argument.... from potentiality. No, sleeping people and especially drugged people have no capacity to feel at that given moment. If you're drugged, I can do whatever the hell I want with you and you would be non the wiser. Hell, I could hit in the head with the sledgehammer and you'd never know because you would be dead. Capacity to feel is an inherent trait - you either have that capacity or you don't. Just because sleeping/drugged people will wake up somewhere in the future and regain their capacity to feel - that doesn't mean they are beings with the capacity to feel right now.The point I think he is trying to make, is since the drugged person has began living already in the sense of thinking and feeling, than when his ability to do as such is stunted, where as the being inside the womb hasn't started thinking or feeling yet, thus its life in that sense hasn't started. Where as the drugged person still has the capability to begin thinking and feeling again. You always seem to zone in on one argument we use and show where that sole argument is never applied however a sole argument on its own doesn't justify the stance without such other arguments. Potentiality isn't actuality by itself is a crappy argument, the better argument which is a combination of "potentiality isn't actuality" with the life hasn't actually began living yet would equal the argument the "potentiality hasn't reached actuality yet" the undeveloped "baby" has not began life therefore terminating it doesn't rob anything from the being because we haven't stolen what it already has, where the drugged person has already started a life and made one of its own, that belongs to that being, and ending the life while it can't continue what it already has when it can continue it later on is destroying the life it already owns. The undeveloped "baby" doesn't own any life in the sense of thinking and feeling therefore terminating it won't destroy anything already had. No, clearly you've never heard of cogito ergo sum. For a life to be lost, that life must first exist. A sperm is not new, distinct human life -your sperm shares with you identical DNA. The genetic material in the sperm is in no way distinct from your DNA. Only the zygote has new, distinct DNA. From a biological view, every new human being begins their life as a fertilized egg - this is because this is the moment when a truly unique organism comes into existence, an organism distinct from both the mother and the father. Therefore, before conception has happened, we can't speak of lives lost.Exactly and in the sense of thinking and feeling that life also doesn't exist. No, the stage of development is not the only difference. You forgot to mention that: 1. The sperm has identical DNA with its host (the father) - The zygote has unique DNA that differs from both the mother and the father. 2. A zygote will develop into an adult human being if given the time and nutrition - a sperm will never do so no matter how much time and nutrition you give it. So yeah, there is no potentiality according to what modern biology has to say. The zygote is an actual human. A zygote developing into a baby is mechanically no different from a baby developing into an adult. Do you know why? Because both are the same organisms at a different stage of development. Because both organisms need the same things to develop - a suitable environment and nutrition. Because both organisms share identical DNA. They are the same.I made the argument towards DNA, how does unique DNA determine life? Can you answer me that?It doesn't matter what the being will develop into, if it has not began thinking or feeling yet then terminating it isn't killing a life in the sense of thinking and feeling. Of course I understand that life generally has a broader definition than just "thinking and feeling" but something being alive on its own doesn't constitute an argument other wise we should stop cutting down trees since trees are living things.How does the necessity of nutrition and time determine life? Trees need nutrition and life but when chopped down to build with wood or make paper we humans don't care. Why should we a tree can't think or feel. How interesting that you seem to forget to apply the same argument for guns. In any case, it's the women's own risk to get a back alley abortion. If we accept the premise that the unborn are human beings (as we should on the basis of embryology), then the women are effectively criminals..Well a debate about guns and a debate about abortion are two different debates, the argument when applied to guns control can or can't be justified with complimenting and being complimented by other arguments, I disagree with your analogy but if you are to debate its accuracy we would have to start debating gun politics along side this argument which I think would get a little bit ridiculous. And it is their risk. If abortion is illegal, then it is illegal for a reason. We aren't going to legalize an illegal activity because people continue to break the law.That is true, but women in another country will obtain brutal punishment when walking around alone without a man to escort her, depending on the arguments that compliment and are complimented by this argument one could say we are unfairly criminalizing women for getting an abortion. Because I see abortion to be murder and a violation of the most basic human rights. You could just as well say - Well, you don't have to kill people, nobody's forcing you but don't stand in my way if I want to kill people. It is my right.Terminating the being in the womb before it has began thinking or feeling hasn't violated any living persons right in the sense f thinking and feeling, trees are alive so how is it right to cut them down for paper? Because a tree can't think or feel.