Debate: Abortion is it right or wrong?
Side: for abortion

The idea of “brain waves” is ambiguous.Then I will make my use of the term less ambiguous.When I say 'brain waves', I refer to the point in whence it is perfectly obvious, as measurable by a machine, that the fetus's brain is beginning to function and exhibit activity as an organ.So let's say it another way. Life begins at conception. Well what kind of life is it? Is it a fish, or dog? No. It's a new human being.You cannot simply call something human if it doesn't have a consciousness, because the presence of a consciousness is the only scientific proof there is of a soul.Inevitably, as long as the fetus does not have a human brain, it might as well be a fish or dog, because all are equally inhuman without the presence of a consciousness.If you were to create some Frankensteinian monstrosity where you placed a human brain successfully within the body of a large dog, thereby making the dog have the same complexity of intelligence of a human being, I would be more inclined to call said monstrosity a human being before I'd call the immediate fusion of a sperm and egg a human being.Now you may be able to impose some artificial definition of 'human' to escape that reality or make your conscience feel better when it begins taking on the role of God. I choose to let Him be the judge as to when a 'soul' is created and if I err, it will be on the side of life.The 'soul' has a practical definition spanning every dogma and lack thereof, in both science and faith. God does not. Please refrain from bringing your dogma into this argument, as this argument has nothing to do with dogma of any kind.Though I will add, if you believe that your God chooses when a soul is created, why are you even arguing that the soul enters the body at conception? Shouldn't God be the one to choose? You are judging when the soul enters the body just as I am. If you're going to talk about your dogma, at the very least, do not be a hypocrite about it.Are you going to use your criteria and figure the child is not 'human' or are you going to wait for the machine?Scientifically, we can estimate that a soul exists within a human body as long as their consciousness functions. Once their consciousness is destroyed, we can estimate the soul is no longer within the body.Going along with your ridiculous scenario, since what you propose is pure witchcraft and sorcery in nature due to your inability to understand how science works, I would not have my child 'revived'.Why?Because my child died. The only way to 'revive' their dead brain would be to create a new intelligence and consciousness altogether; it would be a completely different person altogether, that was simply wearing the body of my offspring. With that said, I have a huge personal issue with the idea of creating a consciousness or creation that possesses a complex consciousness from scratch (such as cloning a human or building a human being from the ground up), as I find the ethical ramifications of such an action to be totally unacceptable risks.In conclusion, do you understand what is means for a brain to be dead? It's dead. It's a corpse. Restoring life to it would be like giving life to an entire human corpse. Therefore, if a scientist would tell me that he could bring my child's brain back to life, I would question every single last shred of sanity said scientist had!Though, if we were to presume that this machine could in fact somehow bring back my child from the dead, without any consequences, and it would genuinely be the soul of my child, then yes, I would wait on the machine.But if science can somehow bring back the dead, such a scenario you set up is something out a utopian fiction, and therefore ethics would of course be treated completely differently. But my entire argument arises under the fact that we, in fact, do not have any such magical, utopian solution for preserving human life, and therefore we must define what human life is, or else we will forever remain in the ethical dark on issues like abortion.