Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-CHOICE

"This is where we have a fundamental disagreement. I see the zygote as human life. Not a cell that is part of a mammal. The zygote, if allowed to continue growing naturally, will become a human being. Therefore, to terminate this human life is murder."A mammalian cell, if processed to revert it back to totipotency, will grow into a zygote, and then a full human. This is like asexual reproduction. Your line of reasoning is flawed.Now you just defined the concept of human life to include an unthinking mass of tissue cells. That cheapens what it means to be human."This is rather dangerous thinking. Whether a the fetus is self-aware or not does not prove or disprove it's humanity. I take it you are gun-ho on euthanasia, possibly even as radical as Peter Singer on these issues."Consequences of a truth do not make the truth any less correct. Humans are defined by their ability to think, reason, and learn; they are defined by a culture spanning tens of thousands of years. Homo sapiens sapiens is defined by genetic relationship. Do not conflate humanity (culture) with H. sapiens sapiens (biology)."What you fail to realize is that I am not concerned with the legality of this concept of life. this is a profound moral issue."You should be concerned with it. When living in a secular society, law is designed to help keep morals out of other peoples' affairs."You keep harping the point that life begins at the stage of self-awareness. This is very comical because technically we don't know when that is yet, and we may never know. So to base your argument for the beginning of life on an assumption makes for a very weak point."Self-awareness isn't a purely philosophical matter. Try looking into neurobiology. But if you can't be bothered, use this simple checklist:#Does it have memory?#Does it respond to stimuli?#Does it have a central nervous system?If you answered yes to all three, then it's probably self aware."The zygote that results from intercourse naturally will form into a fetus. Dander will not naturally form into a fetus, unless one goes through means of the things that you've just described; man-made, unnatural means. That's the difference. "You're resorting to an argument from nature fallacy. It doesn't matter whether or not the life comes artificially or through a naturally existing system, in both cases cells have the potential for life."Sure, up until the point where there is another human life inside that body. There are now two humans rather than one. What about the right of the human inside the woman? You seem to ignore that human's rights."I ignore it because it has no rights. It isn't human. If you can't understand why a mass of cells smaller than a skin flake without a brain isn't human, then I suggest you stop arguing and read some college-level biology textbooks. You need a biology education.But we're hovering around why you believe it is human, actually. This is probably a religious matter for you, not grounded in evidence, or logic."And the woman who has an abortion essentially agrees to assist a doctor in murdering her child by sucking it's brains out. This, of course, is for her own selfish, arrogant, and unethical agenda."It has no brains. It isn't a child yet, because it isn't born. Stop using language that is categorically wrong in order to try and tie together a poor argument."When you find a human being that came from a single sperm alone, let me know. Otherwise, what you just typed is ridiculous. No one would possibly even argue that under any circumstances (except you of course)."I could argue that my religion treats as matter of faith that sperm has souls in all the cells, and that spilling sperm wastefully is murdering all those souls. I could them take up a moral platform with my church and crusade across the country trying to get masturbation banned along with pornography, and sex education.The point to take from this is that these issues are rooted in dogma that cannot be argued away. Science already provides some clear-cut information that could be used to answer the question of whether a fetus or zygote is alive or should be properly construed as human in a legal context. Dogmatic people insist upon having beliefs however, with no evidence to support themselves beyond the emotional and intuitive appeal of their arguments.You are the one here that is making a claim that is just assumed to be true, with no room for negotiation. You insist upon having beliefs instead of knowledge, and that is why I ridicule you.