Abortion is morally wrong

[Mudhammam]

Homo-sapien is the biological nomenclature for a human. Homo is the genus which we share with many other extinct animals H. Sapien is the only living hominid left. I am arguing that the only workable, cohereant definition of a human being is that which is a genetically and informationally complete specimen that belongs to the species H.Sapiens.

Great, you have a textbook definition of a human being. Now why is the fetus bestowed rights that triumph a woman's universal human right to freedom and privacy to do with her own body as she pleases again?

I am using information the same way you would. Nothing funny going on there. Furthermore, an argument from authority is an argument that demonstrates its correctness based on who said it not on the content. I was not doing that I was merely citing his credentials who he was, in case you were interested to seek out the article yourself. Unfortunately, in that same post it seems you committed the genetic fallacy. You state, "What's his background in biology? Yep, when I want opinions on matters of biology (the nature of life), I'll ask a mathematician or philosopher." This is the genetic fallacy because you undermine the information based solely on where the information comes from not the content. For example, if a homeless man walked into a university say, a hundred years ago and said he came up with the theory of relativity. It would not matter that this came from a homeless man the statement would be correct or incorrect on its own accord, not his.
Finally, my position is the farthest thing from arbitrary. The metaphysical principle is this, if an organism that once existed has never died still exists. If I was a fetus and I am a human than it follows that a fetus, to, is a human. The whole process from fetus to baby, baby to child ect. is a process of growth not death. In this sense, it is completely arbitrary to call a baby, child ect. a human and not a fetus. Indeed, this seems to be the default view and unless a defeater can be given as to why it is not rational than we must accept it unless proven otherwise. Finally on the functionalist view, you face multiple issues. For example, suppose we find an idigineous species of Mars who look, think, talk, feel, smell, exactly like us. We can also trace there evolutionary history to see that they evolved exclusively on mars. These creatures would not be human beings, they would not be categorized into the category of homo-sapiens rather, they would be called something along the lines of Domesticus Marsus or something..i made that one up The reality is what being a human boils down to is our genetic history. Furthermore, on the functionalist view there is a problem known as the "tipping point." It asks at what point do we stop becoming human beings when you start taking things away? Most functionalists have been at a loss to describe at what point, exactly, this would be. Some have argued that intellectual functioning was the "buck stops here," sort of entity. I also, believe this has serious problems. For one thing, it reduces humans to a process instead of a thing itself. Here, this confuses a things ontology with what it can do.

You're tripped up on the definition of a human being. The biology of life, of a human organism, doesn't have to fit nicely into your moral framing of a complex social dilemma. There are stages of human life where difficult decisions have to be made about defining what it means to be alive. Is a brain dead person alive? Well, everything but their brain can still function. So they're like 80% human? 100%? The issue of a fetus is an issue of individual liberty, which each person has over their own independent being. A fetus is not its own independent being. It is dependent on and part of a woman's body as much as any parasite is, and she gets to decide what to do with it. End of story.