Abortion is morally wrong

[Esquilax]

Esquilax, I've already discussed the difference between ontology and functionality. Mistaking what that thing can do with what that thing actually is. As for the bundle of cells, the zygote is actually much more unique than that! It is the intermingling of the mother and fathers DNA to form a new, complete, genetically unique creature responsible for its own biological growth. It immediately begins producing human proteins and enzymes and is already genetically determined if it is a girl or a boy by the type of sperm that has fertilized the oocyte.

Except that the definition of life requires a measure of functionality. You don't merely assert that something is alive, there are things it needs to be capable of doing before it reaches that point, and furthermore we have always observed a hierarchy of life in terms of what we deem acceptable to kill. Nobody bats an eye when we kill germs, for example, nor livestock for food; in those cases arguments of utility are made. We kill germs so as to not get sick, we kill livestock to eat and, it could be argued, we terminate fetuses to respect the right to bodily autonomy.

See, our rights are premised on the idea of consistent application, that they are the same throughout a society no matter who you are; that's why they're rights and not privileges. If we apply those rights inconsistently, grant them to some and not others, then the whole system is essentially invalid because it has been compromised. So it is with the right to bodily autonomy; it needs to be applied consistently to work at all, and yet you're arguing for an inconsistent application of it, a single case suspension based on a case you haven't bothered to argue in favor of a thing that lacks all of the characteristics we use to determine murder-able life, supported only by the assertion that it is murder-able.

My point is that you haven't adequately argued that a fetus is in the same category as a fully grown human life, and that simply appealing to genetics doesn't solve that problem, as there are plenty of genetically human things that we see fit to kill, including whole people in some cases. Say, where they're infringing on the rights of others...

Furthermore, if I make a positive claim say its raining outside. (Lets say its not raining.) And you say its not, you are than also obligated to support your negation.

Can I ask what, exactly, you think the last thirty seven pages of thread were for?

Now, I invite you to consider an expanded scenario: you assert that it's raining outside. I physically go outside, see that it's not raining, and come back to you to report that it isn't. And then you simply assert that, in fact, it is raining, and that you haven't seen any evidence that it isn't and in the absence of such an argument, it must be raining.

How well received do you think that line of argument would be?