Abortion [Beren Erchamion vs. Shyam Popat] {fini}

[Shi Huangdi]

Alright, here we go. Let me outline my basic arguments for being pro-life.

My position is based fundamentally on the fact that human life begins at conception (when sperm meets egg), and that human life has intrinsic value and therefore it trumps concerns such as the woman's personal convenience or preference.

I think that you, Shyam, would probably agree that human life is sacred and has intrinsic value. If you do not agree, I'm happy to defend that position, since it's crucial to the abortion debate.

Every major religion and every (sane) political ideology understands that humans have a basic right to life. The United States Declaration of Independence and Constitution acknowledge that right:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Life, therefore, is a basic right of all humans. If this is true, then in order to decide the abortion question, it is necessary to define human. The American Heritage Dictionary defines human this way:

A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Anything from a zygote to the President meets these simple qualifications. Therefore, a zygote (and any other stage of unborn child) is a human being.

So, an unborn child is human and therefore possesses the innate right to life that all humans possess.

----

Link to Commentary Thread.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Let me begin by saying this. Language is a minefield. Anything and everything can be twisted and turned and contradicted in language. You will find yourself supporting one value and by association to the abstract word that denotes that value, you will eventually find yourself supporting the equal and opposite value. The abortion debate is the defining example of this, and to dodge the bullet that is language you have to be specific.

Right, now that's out of the way. Let's get on to my counters to your opening argument.

My position is based fundamentally on the fact that human life begins at conception (when sperm meets egg).

'Human life' is about the vaguest term possible, and it should be defined precisely and logically, or not used at all. I do not agree or disagree that human life, according to a dictionary, begins at conception. It is irrelevant. What is relevant is a number of factors that we often associate with human life. These are, primarily, pain, and to a lesser extent, consciousness. There are, however, others.

Human life has intrinsic value.

Again, 'human life' needs to be addressed properly.

I think that you, Shyam, would probably agree that human life is sacred and has intrinsic value.

Sacred? Not until you define it. Valuable? Yes, probably, but look up to see my response.

Every major religion and every (sane) political ideology understands that humans have a basic right to life.

Those that have lived their lives, yes.

Anything from a zygote to the President meets these simple qualifications. Therefore, a zygote (and any other stage of unborn child) is a human being.

I agree that those constitute human beings but this gives little to the debate, given the factors I have outlined above.

Now for my counter argument. The abortion debate, as I have said before, revolves around pain. So first things first.

Pain. It is generally accepted that fetii cannot feel pain until the 24th week of pregnancy, and that is also the general deadline for abortion to take place. If you need a source, here's two. Without the ability to feel pain, it must be posited that not only is it an uncruel punishing operation as many pro-lifers believe, but that the fetus cannot in all honesty be called a human.

And so we move on to the linking topic of consciousness. Without the ability to feel pain, not less the ability to think or even create basic brain synapse function, can it be said that such a thing is human? It all depends on the definition of human, but it cannot be as simple as "the dictionary defines it as".

And a further point. We humans can relate to other humans because of one thing, in my opinion, and that is shared emotion and relationships. It is this that softens us to each other. Take, for example, an unloved loner and a married father. If you had to kill one, which would you kill? The answer is obvious, and this adds weight to my belief that it is most importantly the emotions of those who the human has reciprocated interactions and relations with that we care about. We do not wish to forcefully destroy this bond between the father and his children, because the children will be sad. We don't care about the father too much, he'll be dead. It is this forced seperation that we empathise with, and dislike.

The fetus, disregarding any abstract love from family members (the father, the grandparents, etc) has no relationship except with the mother, and it is not a deep bond at this stage but, to the cynic, a parasitical one.

If the mother wishes to abort the fetus before 24 weeks, she should have every right to because a) the fetus cannot feel pain, b) the fetus will not know that it is missing out on life, and c) the only relationship it had is now willfully dismantled.

[Shi Huangdi]

Let me begin by saying this. Language is a minefield. Anything and everything can be twisted and turned and contradicted in language. You will find yourself supporting one value and by association to the abstract word that denotes that value, you will eventually find yourself supporting the equal and opposite value. The abortion debate is the defining example of this, and to dodge the bullet that is language you have to be specific.

Right, now that's out of the way. Let's get on to my counters to your opening argument.

You're right there--and whenever I speak vaguely, remind me of that and I'll do my best to clarify. Language needs to be used carefully and precisely in every debate.

'Human life' is about the vaguest term possible, and it should be defined precisely and logically, or not used at all. I do not agree or disagree that human life, according to a dictionary, begins at conception. It is irrelevant. What is relevant is a number of factors that we often associate with human life. These are, primarily, pain, and to a lesser extent, consciousness. There are, however, others.

Again, 'human life' needs to be addressed properly.

When I say "human life", I am referring the scientific definitions of "human" and "life". As I said before, the precise definition of human is:

A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

"Life", from a strictly biological point of view, is defined as follows:

 Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
 Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
 Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
 Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
 Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
 Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
 Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

So--when I say "human life" I mean an organism of genus Homo species Sapiens that exhibits those seven characteristics. A zygote/fetus/other stage of unborn child, therefore, since it has all those attributes, is "human life".

Sacred? Not until you define it. Valuable? Yes, probably, but look up to see my response.

Why is it that people generally agree that it's okay to hunt deer, but it's not okay to kill a human being?

You may disagree with me on this, but for me the answer to that question is based on my faith in God. He is the one Who decided that murder is wrong, and that's why I believe it is wrong.

I'm not sure what your religious persuasion is, but if you are against the murder of an adult human being, how is murdering an unborn human being (again, "human life" as defined above) any different?

Now for my counter argument. The abortion debate, as I have said before, revolves around pain. So first things first.

Pain. It is generally accepted that fetii cannot feel pain until the 24th week of pregnancy, and that is also the general deadline for abortion to take place. If you need a source, here's two. Without the ability to feel pain, it must be posited that not only is it an uncruel punishing operation as many pro-lifers believe, but that the fetus cannot in all honesty be called a human.

The abortion discussion revolves around the definition and value of human life. If we agree that (1) an unborn child is a viable human being, and (2) it is wrong to destroy a humann life, than all other concerns become irrelevant. There are plenty of ways I could murder someone such that they would not feel any pain. I could give them an injection in their sleep, for instance--and they'd never know what happened, and they'd die with no pain whatsoever. But I would still have committed murder and taken a human life. I would be no less guilty. The analogy extends to abortion. If an unborn child is really human, then whether or not it feels pain when killed is irrelevant. The point is that a human life was taken; not that pain was inflicted.

And so we move on to the linking topic of consciousness. Without the ability to feel pain, not less the ability to think or even create basic brain synapse function, can it be said that such a thing is human? It all depends on the definition of human, but it cannot be as simple as "the dictionary defines it as".

Human life is a different concept from the basic functions that we commonly associate with being human. Adults may lose some of these functions—for example, they may go into a coma, or lose their sanity, or something like that. But they are still human.

And a further point. We humans can relate to other humans because of one thing, in my opinion, and that is shared emotion and relationships. It is this that softens us to each other. Take, for example, an unloved loner and a married father. If you had to kill one, which would you kill? The answer is obvious, and this adds weight to my belief that it is most importantly the emotions of those who the human has reciprocated interactions and relations with that we care about. We do not wish to forcefully destroy this bond between the father and his children, because the children will be sad. We don't care about the father too much, he'll be dead. It is this forced seperation that we empathise with, and dislike.

If there were absolutely no alternative to killing one of those men—then you’re right, I would choose to kill the loner rather than the father. But I would still consider it a tragedy, and I would kill no one unless he/she were a threat to the life of another person. So you’re right—when killing is absolutely necessary, those are the criteria we would use to decide who to kill. But in the case of abortion, killing is not absolutely necessary (unless the baby must die to save the mother’s life, in which case I would allow an abortion), and therefore it is still wrong.

The fetus, disregarding any abstract love from family members (the father, the grandparents, etc) has no relationship except with the mother, and it is not a deep bond at this stage but, to the cynic, a parasitical one.

If the mother wishes to abort the fetus before 24 weeks, she should have every right to because a) the fetus cannot feel pain, b) the fetus will not know that it is missing out on life, and c) the only relationship it had is now willfully dismantled.

But human life must come before all other concerns. The life of the fetus is distinct from the life of the mother; its fate is not hers to decide. When she takes charge of the fetus’ fate and kills it, she has gone outside her legitimate sphere of authority and has invaded the privacy and violated the rights of another person. This is absolutely inexcusable except in the direst of circumstances.


Pain is irrelevant; what is relevant here is the definition and value of human life. I have two questions:

1) Do you agree with my definition of human life?
2) Do you agree that murder, as presently defined by the United States (and most other) governments, is wrong?

I don’t mean to insult your intelligence or convictions, but those are two points that we need to be absolutely clear on.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Thanks for the reply, Beren. I'm away for about a week and so won't be able to give you a proper reply until next weekend.

[Shi Huangdi]

That's alright--take your time. I know I took a while to respond to your post .

The point is that we have a good healthy debate going on here. Have a good week!

[removeduser_426582376423734]

When I say "human life", I am referring the scientific definitions of "human" and "life". As I said before, the precise definition of human is:

"Life", from a strictly biological point of view, is defined as follows:

So--when I say "human life" I mean an organism of genus Homo species Sapiens that exhibits those seven characteristics. A zygote/fetus/other stage of unborn child, therefore, since it has all those attributes, is "human life".

Beren, in a competition of semantics and technicalities, you would get that blue ribbon every day of the week. Unfortunately, it is not so simple. You have correctly defined a human life, and I commend you for that, but you have not correctly told me why human life should be protected, and it is this why that separates pro-lifers and pro-choicers. An unconditional protection of everyone from a certain group without a clearly defined reason is illogical, and I fear that is what you argue here.

Why is it that people generally agree that it's okay to hunt deer, but it's not okay to kill a human being?

You may disagree with me on this, but for me the answer to that question is based on my faith in God. He is the one Who decided that murder is wrong, and that's why I believe it is wrong.

I'm not sure what your religious persuasion is, but if you are against the murder of an adult human being, how is murdering an unborn human being (again, "human life" as defined above) any different?

I agree with you that it may seem hypocritical to protect humans against other animals but I assure you that it is not. My answer would probably go through evolutionary instinct, but what your view is on that I can guess (and can remember) so we'll skip over this part if you want. My second answer would be the emotion empathy, which you may be more inclined to follow even though it is interchangeable with evolutionary instinct. To put it simply, I don't want to die, I know you don't want to die, I won't kill you because I know what it's like to want to keep living.The other reasons against murdering a sentient, non-fetal human being, I outlined in the other post, but I'll repeat myself - pain, consciousness, and relationships. If you want me to elaborate, just ask, but I don't see a need to.

The abortion discussion revolves around the definition and value of human life. If we agree that (1) an unborn child is a viable human being, and (2) it is wrong to destroy a humann life, than all other concerns become irrelevant. There are plenty of ways I could murder someone such that they would not feel any pain. I could give them an injection in their sleep, for instance--and they'd never know what happened, and they'd die with no pain whatsoever. But I would still have committed murder and taken a human life. I would be no less guilty. The analogy extends to abortion. If an unborn child is really human, then whether or not it feels pain when killed is irrelevant. The point is that a human life was taken; not that pain was inflicted.

You answer too soon - I assume you didn't read the rest of my post before writing this because I counter some of these arguments in the same post later on. It is not pain alone, but a collaboration of many different factors. However, a few things I'd like to comment on - I do not agree that an unborn child is a viable human being (semantics, I know, but the issue of 'viability' is a big one in the abortion debate so let's leave that word out of it) and I do not agree that it is wrong to destroy a human life (because of the way it is being defined).

Human life is a different concept from the basic functions that we commonly associate with being human. Adults may lose some of these functions—for example, they may go into a coma, or lose their sanity, or something like that. But they are still human.

And when an old man goes into a coma, does the family not have the choice to 'pull the plug'?

If there were absolutely no alternative to killing one of those men—then you’re right, I would choose to kill the loner rather than the father. But I would still consider it a tragedy, and I would kill no one unless he/she were a threat to the life of another person. So you’re right—when killing is absolutely necessary, those are the criteria we would use to decide who to kill. But in the case of abortion, killing is not absolutely necessary (unless the baby must die to save the mother’s life, in which case I would allow an abortion), and therefore it is still wrong.

A valid argument, Beren, but you hide your agreement to my position on human relationships.

But human life must come before all other concerns. The life of the fetus is distinct from the life of the mother; its fate is not hers to decide. When she takes charge of the fetus’ fate and kills it, she has gone outside her legitimate sphere of authority and has invaded the privacy and violated the rights of another person. This is absolutely inexcusable except in the direst of circumstances.

Has the fetus not invaded the authority and privacy of the mother? A 9-month free ride while the host gets fat, goes through morning sickness, with a chance of death - lest not we forget immeasurable pain - at childbirth.

Pain is irrelevant; what is relevant here is the definition and value of human life.

If your definition of human life is my definition, then pain is one of the most relevant issues.

1) Do you agree with my definition of human life?

Yes.

2) Do you agree that murder, as presently defined by the United States (and most other) governments, is wrong?

I agree that murder is wrong to those who have already been born.

I end this with a quote from Exodus, 21:22-23;

If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award. But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life.

It is quite clear, in this small passage, that the life of the mother is more important, Biblically, than the life of the fetus. The fetus does not carry the same importance as the mother - even death by accident is punishable by death in her case, whereas the fetus' death receives a monetary fine.

Sorry for the late reply.

[Shi Huangdi]

Beren, in a competition of semantics and technicalities, you would get that blue ribbon every day of the week. Unfortunately, it is not so simple. You have correctly defined a human life, and I commend you for that, but you have not correctly told me why human life should be protected, and it is this why that separates pro-lifers and pro-choicers. An unconditional protection of everyone from a certain group without a clearly defined reason is illogical, and I fear that is what you argue here.

Let me say up front that the only reason I believe that human life ought to be protected, is because I am a Christian. God created human beings in His image, and He has decided that human life, for its own sake, is intrinsically valuable.

I don't know what your religious convictions are. But I'm going to assume that you oppose murder (that is, the killing of an adult human being without good cause). If it is really wrong to kill an adult human being, then why is it not wrong to kill an unborn human being? What difference does age and development make?

I agree with you that it may seem hypocritical to protect humans against other animals but I assure you that it is not. My answer would probably go through evolutionary instinct, but what your view is on that I can guess (and can remember) so we'll skip over this part if you want. My second answer would be the emotion empathy, which you may be more inclined to follow even though it is interchangeable with evolutionary instinct. To put it simply, I don't want to die, I know you don't want to die, I won't kill you because I know what it's like to want to keep living.The other reasons against murdering a sentient, non-fetal human being, I outlined in the other post, but I'll repeat myself - pain, consciousness, and relationships. If you want me to elaborate, just ask, but I don't see a need to.

You answer too soon - I assume you didn't read the rest of my post before writing this because I counter some of these arguments in the same post later on. It is not pain alone, but a collaboration of many different factors. However, a few things I'd like to comment on - I do not agree that an unborn child is a viable human being (semantics, I know, but the issue of 'viability' is a big one in the abortion debate so let's leave that word out of it) and I do not agree that it is wrong to destroy a human life (because of the way it is being defined).

If human life does not have intrinsic value, then you’re right. The only concerns would be pain, emotions, consciousness, and relationships. I believe, though, that human life does have intrinsic value—because God decided that it would.

Now I don’t believe Evolution; I think it is a seriously flawed theory, from a scientific perspective. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that Evolution really did happen. The progression of species through natural selection depends on genetics, mutations, breeding, etc. Over millions of years, species tend randomly to improve, responding to their environment and their genetic makeup.

If all that is true, then, the absolute worst thing we could do to our species—the most advanced life form—is kill individuals randomly. In my country alone, about 50 million babies have been aborted. What if one of those children contains genetic information that would help raise our species to the next Evolutionary level? Evolution depends on individual living to grow up, reproduce, and displace weaker members of the species. If millions of individuals are not allowed to reach adulthood (and therefore never reproduce) we are stifling the process of Evolution and working against the betterment of our species. Who knows how many Einsteins, or Hawkings, or Aristotles, or Churchills, or Jeffersons, or other potentially great minds and individuals have been eliminated through abortion? Who knows whether the person who would have found the cure fore cancer, or who would have perfected nuclear fusion, or would have done some other great thing, has been killed?

Even from a purely practical point of view, abortion is bad. If parents keep killing their babies, populations will decrease and there will be fewer children left to pay into programs like Social Security, that support parents in their old age. Social programs cannot survive when the population is decreasing and children are not allowed to reach adulthood.


So my argument is, first of all, I believe that human life has intrinsic value and therefore, it comes before all other concerns—including pain, human relationships, whatever. It is wrong to take a life. Period.

But from an Evolutionary or even a practical perspective, abortion hampers the progress of our species and stifles growth.

And when an old man goes into a coma, does the family not have the choice to 'pull the plug'?

That is a difficult situation that needs to be examined case by case. My first instinct is to say no, but depending on the situation it might be justified.

Has the fetus not invaded the authority and privacy of the mother? A 9-month free ride while the host gets fat, goes through morning sickness, with a chance of death - lest not we forget immeasurable pain - at childbirth.

Well, if we’re going to talk about who’s fault it is that the mother’s privacy was disrupted—why don’t we blam her and the man for having sex in the first place? The baby didn’t choose to be conceived. It was the mother’s and the father’s choice to have sex. The pain, morning sickness, etc can’t be blamed on the baby.

Rape is another situation—in that case I would revert to the argument that it is still just plain wrong (not to mention impractical) to kill a human being.

If your definition of human life is my definition, then pain is one of the most relevant issues.

I agree that murder is wrong to those who have already been born.

Why? If human life does not have intrinsic value (which you must believe if you admit that an unborn child is human and yet allow abortion), then why shouldn’t I kill someone I don’t like? You would probably respond that he/she would feel pain, and that I would disrupt human relationships. But so what? Why does that really matter? Why is someone else’s life, comfort, or personal relationships, more important that what I want to do? By whose standard do we decide that it is wrong to commit murder? Who says my personal comfort must come after someone else’s right to life?

What I’m getting at is, that without God, there is no absolute moral standard and we are left either to follow traditions or to do whatever we want. Sure—the law may say that murder of an adult is illegal and punishable, but that doesn’t make it necessarily wrong.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Let me say up front that the only reason I believe that human life ought to be protected, is because I am a Christian. God created human beings in His image, and He has decided that human life, for its own sake, is intrinsically valuable.

I don't know what your religious convictions are. But I'm going to assume that you oppose murder (that is, the killing of an adult human being without good cause). If it is really wrong to kill an adult human being, then why is it not wrong to kill an unborn human being? What difference does age and development make?

I have answered that question in previous posts and won't be repeating myself. Also, I have to say you've put me in a very hard position because you have brought God into this debate. While it may be impossible not to do so for you, it is impossible for me to argue properly while you do so. I fear we may have reached a barrier but I'll continue.

If human life does not have intrinsic value, then you’re right. The only concerns would be pain, emotions, consciousness, and relationships. I believe, though, that human life does have intrinsic value—because God decided that it would.

Now I don’t believe Evolution; I think it is a seriously flawed theory, from a scientific perspective. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that Evolution really did happen. The progression of species through natural selection depends on genetics, mutations, breeding, etc. Over millions of years, species tend randomly to improve, responding to their environment and their genetic makeup.

If all that is true, then, the absolute worst thing we could do to our species—the most advanced life form—is kill individuals randomly. In my country alone, about 50 million babies have been aborted. What if one of those children contains genetic information that would help raise our species to the next Evolutionary level? Evolution depends on individual living to grow up, reproduce, and displace weaker members of the species. If millions of individuals are not allowed to reach adulthood (and therefore never reproduce) we are stifling the process of Evolution and working against the betterment of our species. Who knows how many Einsteins, or Hawkings, or Aristotles, or Churchills, or Jeffersons, or other potentially great minds and individuals have been eliminated through abortion? Who knows whether the person who would have found the cure fore cancer, or who would have perfected nuclear fusion, or would have done some other great thing, has been killed?

I counter this whole argument with the question, what if the fetus would grow up to be MegaHitlerx100? You'd be sorry then. Unfortunately, the argument you put up holds no water.

Even from a purely practical point of view, abortion is bad. If parents keep killing their babies, populations will decrease and there will be fewer children left to pay into programs like Social Security, that support parents in their old age. Social programs cannot survive when the population is decreasing and children are not allowed to reach adulthood.

I've never heard this argument before, but I'll go with it. Unfortunately, in this closed system we live in, fewer people will mean slightly richer people, which will mean slightly more taxed people. It will balance itself out. There will not be some kind of fiscal deficit due to abortion.

So my argument is, first of all, I believe that human life has intrinsic value and therefore, it comes before all other concerns—including pain, human relationships, whatever. It is wrong to take a life. Period.

But from an Evolutionary or even a practical perspective, abortion hampers the progress of our species and stifles growth.

Unfortunately, no. Abortion is an argument used, in many cases, for the termination of mentally handicapped or disabled fetii. While I don't fully agree with doing this, the evolutionary argument you offer doesn't hold.

Well, if we’re going to talk about who’s fault it is that the mother’s privacy was disrupted—why don’t we blam her and the man for having sex in the first place? The baby didn’t choose to be conceived. It was the mother’s and the father’s choice to have sex. The pain, morning sickness, etc can’t be blamed on the baby.

It can, quite clearly, be blamed on the fetus. Sex without pregnancy is incredibly common, and calling a woman irresponsible for having sex even with contraception (it isn't 100% effective) is extremely unfair.

Rape is another situation—in that case I would revert to the argument that it is still just plain wrong (not to mention impractical) to kill a human being.

Why make any other arguments then, if you continue to fall back onto this one? Just use CTRL+C, CTRL+V and don't waste your time.

Why? If human life does not have intrinsic value (which you must believe if you admit that an unborn child is human and yet allow abortion), then why shouldn’t I kill someone I don’t like? You would probably respond that he/she would feel pain, and that I would disrupt human relationships. But so what? Why does that really matter? Why is someone else’s life, comfort, or personal relationships, more important that what I want to do? By whose standard do we decide that it is wrong to commit murder? Who says my personal comfort must come after someone else’s right to life?

You can do what you want. I don't go by anyone's standards when considering morals apart from my own. Murder of a human being (not fetus) is bad for the reasons I've stated numerous times. I question every moral conviction I have. I fear you don't.

What I’m getting at is, that without God, there is no absolute moral standard and we are left either to follow traditions or to do whatever we want. Sure—the law may say that murder of an adult is illegal and punishable, but that doesn’t make it necessarily wrong.

And here is why I don't think we can debate this further.

[Shi Huangdi]

If you would like to end this debate, so be it.

But you objected to the idea that I would bring God into this argument. I admit that without God, there is no reason why abortion would be wrong. I still think it would be impractical and foolish, but it wouldn't be morally wrong (and therefore the government would have no right to forbid it).

So the reason why it is impossible for me to argue without including God is because I cannot offer any concrete argument against abortion without referring to an absolute moral standard. The only absolute moral standard that exists is God.

I guess this is the core of our disagreement. If there is no God, abortion is not wrong. If there is a God (and if He is the God of the Bible) then abortion is wrong.

Anyway thank you for your patience and your time. It was an interesting discussion :.

Moderators can now close this thread.

[Каие]

Done, good thread guys. If you want it re-opened and re-started let me know ASAP. Feel free to start other separate debates.