If you would have cared to look, i have established several points as to why it is scientifically indisputable that abortion is murder.

Explain to me how one can be against abortion, yet not consider it to be murder...

Since you want to use the legal definition of murder, we can use the definition of murder as provided under section 18, U.S. Code § 1111. Murder is there defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought now there are some key-words we need to focus on, and those are killing of a human being, malice aforethought. the dictionary defines aforethought as previously in mind and malice as intent to do harm , and abortions aren't something you just decide one day that you are going to do like going to McDonald's for lunch. it requires prior planning, and most importantly, an appointment, which is a plan. Abortion does harm to the unborn, and as i have already established, an embryo is in fact a human being, and is indeed alive. So explain to me how you believe that abortion is not the killing of a human being with malicious forethought.

The hypocrisy in your statement was that in response to me calling you out on your ad hominem fallacy, you shifted the attention on someone else using a non sequitur, and used another ad hominem fallacy on top of that. Furthermore, you have no proof that the individual you were speaking of was or was not a person who fits the definition of that word. You also seem to have no argument for the topic we are debating here besides the one i have already shot down, you have simply, this entire time, been calling your opponents cretins and idiots, which is not an argument but a series of insults.

Adding this message was not only meant to apply just to you. the ad hominem fallacy example applies to everyone who uses it. I happen to know who you speak of, but i find it quite hypocritical of you to use this fallacy in response to my calling you out on it.

By your argument, you have committed the ad hominem fallacy in calling your opponent a cretin. I have noticed this quite a bit from your arguments, they seem to be all directed at the people who made the arguments, instead of the arguments themselves.

Genetically speaking, a fertilised embryo is still a human. You did state, and i quote that a growing embryo was a "A clump of some cells with no shape or unified purpose or ability to exist" but the problem is that if the so-called "clump of cells" that you speak of can exist, or there would be no way for us to reproduce, it just needs support from the mother to survive. the problem with your argument is that after the baby is born it is still helpless. Just because in the first few months of life, a human baby can barely lift its head, does not mean we have the right to kill it. Using that exact same argument, it could be justified that you could kill your baby AFTER it is born as well.

The arguments that you have presented are obviously based on a straw man fallacy. The argument is that the very moment an egg is conceived, it is then a human life. There is no point that can go against this seeing as there is no way to prove otherwise without bringing into the mix opinionated arguments. Genetically, the embryo is a HUMAN, it has 46 chromosomes, just like you and I

If you had cared to research your side, you will find that the "fetus is NOT part of the woman. it has a completely different set of DNA and chromosomes. When something is part of someone, it has the same DNA, and exact same DNA fingerprinting as the other tissues in the body.

You forget the definition of parasite. a parasite is an organism that lives and feeds on or in an organism of a different species and causes harm to its host. the key word there is harm. A human baby is not a parasite. Furthermore, a parasite is an organism involved in the symbiotic relationship of parasitism, which is defined as one organism benefits, while the other is harmed. Both organisms benefit, because the woman is having her species continued. You also have skewed the definition of human. A human being is a member of the species of homo sapien. Homo sapien is defined by a number of characteristics, one of which is the number of chromosomes in the cells, in a genetically normal human, there is 46. in a genetically normal "fetus," there are 46 chromosomes, and the DNA inside of these is genetically different than that of the mother.

If a woman is raped, there is still no grounds for killing the baby. It is illogical to believe that it is justifiable that when a woman is raped, that that pregnancy be terminated. If one day, every son and daughter of any rapist were to be killed, would that be morally justified? If not, then why do you justify doing that exact same thing, only to little babies who haven’t even been born? Another reason is that if you were to abort the baby of a woman who was raped, it would be exactly the same as if you were to give someone the death penalty because their father was a criminal. Therefore, it is not morally justifiable to abort a baby whose father is a rapist.

Abortion does cause pain to the baby inside the mother. Many may argue that abortion causes no pain what so ever, this is wrong. Their argument states that a baby cannot feel pain before its cerebral cortex is functioning. This is simply not true. There is a part of the brain that is present in the early stages of pregnancy that is known as the thalamus. This part of the brain is there and functioning within 8 weeks of pregnancy. Anyways, even if the baby, at no point of the pregnancy, could feel pain, it would still be wrong. Killing someone in their sleep might be painless, but it is still murder. Therefore, abortion is unethical, even if the point of no pain abortion was true.

The fertilized egg is in fact living. When two gamete cells come together, they form one cell. This cell is an organism that is completely different from its mother. Not only does the cell have different DNA, but it is alive. According to the cell theory, cells are the basic units of LIFE. I would like to focus on that 4-letter word for just a second. How exactly could cells be the basic unit of life, AND a collection of cells not be alive? This is obviously a fallacy of the law of noncontradiction. Furthermore, a collection of cells that is actively replicating and growing is the definition of life. There is no non living thing on this earth that happens to be self-replicating and grows. So let me ask how a growing, self-replicating organism can be classified as non living. As has been proven, it is impossible to logically argue that the “fetus” is not alive.

An unborn baby has its own separate DNA. If I were to take a tissue sample from 3 people, using DNA fingerprinting, it is indisputable that I could tell the difference between each human that I tested. Now, the same principle can be applied to an unborn baby and its mother. If a tissue sample was taken from the unborn, and one from its mother, a simple DNA test would conclude that the unborn child is different from the parent. Furthermore, if the DNA in a child is different than the mother, then how can it have been logically deduced that the baby was part of the mother until it is born? The explanation of this is simple, gamete cells are created, not by mitosis, but by meiosis, which is different for one reason: the cells that are produced are not genetically identical to one another. When the two gametes (egg and sperm) come together to fertilise, they create a somatic cell, as explained before, and this somatic cell is different than any cell in the body of the woman. Therefore, the baby is not part of the mother.

A fertilized egg is a different human being than its mother. Dermot has pointed out that "Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not an actual human being—it is a potential human being, i.e. it is a part of the woman," but the truth is, the so-called "fetus" is actually a human at the moment of conception, as proven in section (1). It is an undisputed scientific fact that a genetically normal human has 46 chromosomes, and a genetically normal human gamete cell has 23. It is also an undisputed fact that each and every cell in our body has a nucleus, and in that nucleus, there is enough DNA to make 23 pairs of chromosomes. When a sperm fertilises an egg, there are 23 chromosomes from mom, and 23 from dad, which just so happen to add up to 46, which defines the species of homo sapien. Since the fertilised gamete cell was fertilised, from then on, it cannot be classified as a gamete cell, but as a somatic cell, this somatic cell will then undergo the cellular process as described in section (1). Therefore, you cannot argue that the baby is part of the mother.

A fertilized egg is indeed a human being. The argument was brought up that killing a group of cells is not murder, seeing as it is not life. This point is not true in the least. All multicellular organisms start out life as unicellular. Through the process of mitosis, one cell becomes two, two becomes four, and so on. Cells accumulate to become tissues, tissues accumulate to become organs, and organs accumulate to become the fully mature organism. At no point in the middle of this process is there an official start of life. It is in the beginning, when the egg is fertilized, that there is a living being. it, therefore, cannot be argued that life does not start at conception. Furthermore, a collection of cells, no matter how small, is life, whether human or not determines its value.

What you are doing here is obviously fallacious. just because something is the law doesn't mean it is true. In World War II the nazi party made it legal to slaughter Jews by the hundreds of thousands, but does this mean that it is not murder, legally it wasn't, but morally it was. I do wonder how this makes sense to you in our case here.

First off, people who consider themselves to be transgender are confused. there are only two options: male and female. Your gender is not chosen by your feelings, as they do not determine reality. It is determined by the chromosomes present in your cells whether they be XX or XY. You cannot change your genetics, thus you cannot change your gender. Furthermore, if you truly believe that you are a woman when your genetics say that you are a male, it is only logical to state that that person has some type of mental shortcoming, or disorder. Although a person may argue that one can legally change their gender under United States law, it is illogical to do so. If I believe that I am a frog, and the Supreme Court of the United States legally declares me a frog, I am still genetically a human. In our society, we love to pretend that things are not the way they are. If we could go back to the frog example, if everyone on the entire earth believes it to be true, does it mean it's true? As David Stevens once said: "A lie is a lie, even if everyone believes it, the truth is the truth, even if no one believes it." Lastly, I will say that a person who has dissociative identity disorder may truly believe that they are someone different when they are going between different personalities, but it does not mean that it is true. Transgenderism is just like that, it is definitely a mental disorder, because one who is out of touch with reality is considered insane and credited with a mental disorder. Transgender people are out of touch with reality (your gender is the same no matter how much plastic surgery you undergo). Therefore, transgenderism is a mental disorder.