Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-LIFE

"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."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.I'm not talking about an animal or genetically engineered cells or whatever crazy outlandish example that you keep pulling out of your arse."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)."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."You should be concerned with it. When living in a secular society, law is designed to help keep morals out of other peoples' affairs."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."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."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."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 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."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."http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html (checkmate)"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."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. 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)"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."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.