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

You must explain why thinking and feeling are important for deciding who gets rights and who doesn't.Thinking an feeling is what causes us to appreciate life and care for it. When you take life from something that doesn't think or feel you have done it no injustice because it is incapable of caring for their own life. When we kill a tree for paper it doesn't matter because the tree can't feel wronged, or couldn't ever feel wronged about the idea of trees dying for us to simply write on slices of their "corpse".  You also need to define your terms - what does ''thinking'' mean? Does it mean the ability to make decisions, think in abstract terms (i.e having self-awareness, questioning the meaning of life etc) and contemplate? Consequently, what does ''feeling'' mean? Feeling as in physical sensory capacity or the ability to experience emotions?Thinking is being able to form any sort of thoughts, awareness, logic, reason, prejudice, analysis, criticism, etc. Feeling is being able to experience emotion. A problem with the traits you proposed is that animals also think and feel albeit to a lesser degree. If thinking and feeling are defining traits, then it makes sense why we value adult human beings more than, for example, pigs. That's because adult humans have a far greater capacity for thought than pigs.I definitely do think animals probably deserve equal treatment though I feel conflicted on e issue of animal ethics, I haven't analyzed how we treat animals enough to know how I feel on the whole issue. What doesn't make sense however, is why we should value babies more than adult pigs - adupigs are far more intelligent, more capable when it comes to problem solving and have a high capacity for emotions, such as fondness, fear, anger etc.First of all human babies have a higher potential of intelligence and feelings more so than any animal. Also the apacity to think and feel is a two variable, which matters more? A being with a little intelligence and significant feelings or a being with little feeling and significant intelligence? Personally I feel the difference in intelligence shouldn't be as a big of a factor as difference of feeling. In fact both only matter to appreciate life but one only needs so much intelligence to do so, more feeling more appreciation for life. A human baby is possibly more capable of feeling than most animals, most animals show this actually.  The question of cloning poses no threat to the conception argument - to clone someone, you still need an egg with its nucleus removed, which would emulate the unfertilized egg and a somatic cell from my body, which would emulate the sperm. Once the fusion of these two happens ( emulated conception) - only then does the resulting organism grow into an exact replica of me. Prior to fusion, nothing will happen. Cloning merely shows that there is more than one way to create a zygote, nothing else. So, yes while I use DNA to show that a new being exist - in essence, the presence of a developing zygote can also confirm this.It can determine that the being is human from possessing human DNA but sperm also contains human DNA as well, sperm containing human DNA can also be determined as human as well right? I am claiming that person isn't living or feeling yet in the terms of thinking and feeling.  The problem is that the capability to think and to feel are inherent qualities - you either can perform these function or not. Just because I will develop the ability to think and to feel (from a fetus to an adult) - that doesn't mean that I have these capabilities now. Consequently, just because I used to have the capability to think and to feel (used to be conscious) - that doesn't mean that I have these capabilities now. To say that I used to be a person, therefore I remain a person is akin to saying that because I used to live in Italy 2 years ago, I still live there event hough I now live in the USA. The argument that the drugged person will start thinking and feeling again - this is pure potentiality. Just because he will gain the capacity to think and feel again in the future - that doesn't mean that he has these capabilities now. The fetus can also think and feel in the future, but this won't stop you from aborting it. So, it appears to me that you have double standards against the fetus while supporting the drugged person. You acknowledge a future potentiality for the latter, but not the former.I am not saying the drugged person isn't thinking or feeling at the moment, but that the drugged person has already started living in the sense of thinking and feeling and therefore deserves to continue his/her life if possible. People will usually agree that if given the choice if their capability to think and feel was momentarily stunted for just a moment they'd desire to not be killed and be allowed to live as soon as their ability to think and feel has continued again, the fetus however hasn't consciously even bagan to exist yet, thus could care less if they began to do so or not. All that is taken from the drugged person is his future, just like from the fetus. Nothing else is taken. That fact that he ''lived'' before is irrelevant, as he has ceased to live now, at the current point in time. Any future life is mere potentiality. The fact is that while drugged, the person has ceased to exist. While he may wake up and regain his ability to think and feel and to continue his life - at this current time, he is nothing more than a human shell that lacks all the criteria needed to be granted the right to life. Killing him will only deprive him of the future, and nothing else.A fetus hasn't began to consciously exist long enough to determine if it wants its future, a drugged person has. You can't take something away from a nonexistent consciousness (capability to think and feel). I should have been more specific - DNA demonstrates the existence of new human life, but whether we're dealing with a zygote that actually developes and grows into a greater whole is a different story.Regardless the phyisique of the being does exist, the being as a conscious life doesn't, and you can't wrong a nonexistent consciousness. Then if this is the case, why should we value newborn babies (or babies in general) over adult pigs, apes, dolphines etc - all these animals possess a greater degree of abstract thought and capacity for emotions.Because its not intelligence alone or emotions alone that determines significance of its life, I will call it conciousness like I've been doing for a lack of a better term, I think that is essentially what I am trying to describe with "thinking and feeling". If something doesn't consciously exist and never has yet, it cares not for its future, thus you aren't wringing it. Generally critical "morality" (I quote due to the subjectivity of morality) has a lot to do with forcing something on another it may or does not like (nobody wants to be robbed from, murdered, etc) the fetus once terminated can never dislike being terminated because it never consciously existed. All organisms require nutrition for survival and all organisms are characterized by growth and development that ultimately ends with death.I miscommunicated I meant "right to live". About the trees and plants - you tell me why it isn't okay to chop them? I ascribe value to humans by the sole virtue of being human. It is speciesm, I know.They aren't conscious, that's why, at least not in the same way to otherth life, to us. They don't feel pain, they don't get scared, they don't fear for their life.