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

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.You must explain why thinking and feeling are important for deciding who gets rights and who doesn't.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?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.What doesn't make sense however, is why we should value babies more than adult pigs - adult pigs 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. 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.DNA is the best way to show, that a new human being has come into existence. After the moment of conception, the sperm and egg fuse, thus forming a whole new genetic code distinct from its parents. I use the separate DNA argument to merely demonstrate that truly a new individual has come into existence. To claim that a new human being does not exist after conception is fallacious and un-scientific. You can, however, claim that a new person does not yet exist.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.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.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. 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.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. Everything that hasn't already happened is only potentiality. I made the argument towards DNA, how does unique DNA determine life? Can you answer me that?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. 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.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. 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.All organisms require nutrition for survival and all organisms are characterized by growth and development that ultimately ends with death. 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. 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.I have never claimed that fetuses have a right to life because of some contingent characteristic. I apply them value merely for being human beings.