THBT: On balance, the US ought to make abortion illegal.

And before you start into it, yes, I see the later portion where you cite a website and state your own opinion on chromosomes and new arrangements of DNA as a basis for stating that this is the beginning of a person. I get that that is your opinion and even that it is broadly shared. I’m trying to understand how someone who clearly rejects using traits as a basis for awarding personhood is doing just that. I’m also trying to understand how, if this is the view of most scientists, they justify that view on the basis of certain traits, especially when you agreed that science lacks that capacity.

I started a long response, then I saw this:

"To you, the question of its humanity is up for debate, although science places the start of a new, distinct individual human being at conception and fertilization.”

We just agreed that this isn’t true. It’s the reason we had that whole beginning argument, the reason I kept pressing you. Your answer to it was the reason I finally was willing to move on and give my full position so that we could discuss it in detail. If science hasn’t designated which traits are necessary to the beginning of “a new, distinct individual human being,” then science cannot determine when that human being/person starts. If we are no longer agreed on this, then tell me what those traits are that distinguish what is a human being/person from anything else. I'll delay any other responses until we rectify this, one way or the other.

YOU: "Persons are those who have reached the point of viability, i.e. the ability to live outside the mother’s womb. I fully admit it’s arbitrary, though my basis for selecting that isn’t for any acquisition of traits or personhood, but rather due to the legal, social, and medical realities inherent to reproduction as it relates to society. Pre-viability runs aground of these problems, post-viability does not.

Whose legal standard, whose social standard? Who gets to decide, and WHY are they right? If you can't answer these questions, your argument is morally deficient and irresponsible. Based on such views, how can you deem Hitler's Germany wrong? The social standard permitted the killing of around 12-13 million undesirables that the top end, the elites, viewed as subhuman or deficient, just like you and the elites of your society view the unborn human being as deficient; therefore, according to your thinking, it is okay to kill it just like Hitler viewed it okay to kill Jews, or mentally challenged, or even those who did not hold the same ideology as the Third Reich.

Do you not see the inconsistency of your views on this topic??? If not, we need to go deeper into your justifications. Provide your ultimate moral standard for judging such matters and why it is right. So far, you have given the legal system and society. Laws change. Why is the current law a just law? Societies change. One hundred years ago, abortion was considered wrong because it was the killing of an innocent unborn child. Which is the right view (you're not telling me they are both the right view, are you? No, you are arguing that your view, the okay to kill the unborn, is the right view [without justification] - at least to a particular stage of development - thus, you use two arguments here, its environment and its development).

1. Environment: You are saying that personhood is only acceptable by the individual's ability to live outside the womb. I.e., "the ability to live outside the mother’s womb."

2. Level of Development: You say that only at viability does it start to show the signs of personhood. I.e., "Persons are those who have reached the point of viability." Again, you admit that this is an arbitrary standard, so why not include it at some other point in development, like others who view personhood differently do and justify by such thinking that it is permissible to kill the HUMAN BEING after birth, or when it so suits them?

Again, your arguments make little sense. You are basing the killing of the human being on two criteria, its level of development and its ability to survive outside the womb by itself, when in fact, it cannot survive outside the womb by itself. SHOULD EITHER of these two factors apply? I say no, based on what kind of being it is, unless you want to explain that it is okay to kill human beings based on their level of development or the environment in which they live. Please go ahead.

YOU: "I'd call all this the short version. There's a good deal of reasoning that I haven't included, though I'm presenting this as a basis for discussion that will likely last a while, so I open it up for your consideration."

Thank you, I did!

YOU: "Branching off of that, you’ve made the point that we should essentially give all stages of life along this line the benefit of the doubt. I have two problems with this."

YOU: "One, I’m not sure why you start at fertilization. What is it about that particular step that makes it the definitive “first”? We’ve already agreed that there are no empirically defined traits that confer any stage of development with personhood, so what is it about the zygote that renders it a person, while the separate sperm and ovum is not? They are part of that through-line leading to a personal being, right? I’m not sure why they’re cut out of this."

That is when the new individual human being starts, and it is reasonable to believe so. The twenty-three chromosomes from the sperm and twenty-three from the egg form the components of the being that will retain this genetic makeup throughout its life, separate from the genetic makeup of either parent..

"Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg CLEARLY produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in LESS THAN a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a UNIQUE molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it."
https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

YOU: "Two, and connected to the first, what happens when this process is interrupted? Your argument was that someone who is a personal being has always been one, but we can only verify that for people who have incontrovertibly become personal beings. Anyone who doesn’t reach that point, i.e. the point of self-consciousness, cannot be verified in the same sense. For that matter, I’d say it’s at least unclear whether someone has always been a personal being or became a personal being over the course of their development, which renders the assertion that one who is a person has always been a person from conception."

Again, your criteria for verification cannot be determined as to when its personhood begins. It does not have the means to do so. You place here the point of consciousness, but does that make it something that is within the human being that is growing or outside such a being? That is an important position to consider. Either personhood is a natural part (part of its nature) of what it means to be a human being, built into the human being, or personhood is acquired by external traits or things outside the human being. If so, what is or are those things? Where does this thing originate from? Again, your scientific view is absolutely pathetic in answering such questions, yet with the pro-choice stance, the okay is given to kill something you don't even know is a person, or perhaps even a human being or not. So absurdly ridiculous, IMO.

YOU: "The result is that I don’t assign personhood to the unborn. We can and must assign personhood to humans, so I simply don’t do it developmentally."

So, who are you to make this determination??? So what? Does that change what is being killed? You don't know, and yet you say, "Kill it. Who cares." Can you apply that same standard to yourself or your loved ones? No, you apply a different standard. Thus, hypocrisy and double standards are being used. The share inconsistency of your view is what makes it so morally indefensible. You can't justify your position, nor did you do so in the debate.

On balance, abortion should be illegal.

YOU: "I don’t think the question of personhood and when it begins is productive."

I disagree. With respect to human beings, if "you" don't know what you are killing, you SHOULD NOT kill it unless it is threatening your life or the life of your family. What you are basically saying is, "I don't know what I am killing. Therefore, it is okay to kill it." Now apply this to yourself. Suppose another human being is not recognizing your personhood, as Hitler did with the Jews. Does that make it okay to kill you? I'm sure, or at least I hope you would say it is not. Otherwise, the killing of human beings becomes a subjective, relative preference. That could mean if I don't like you, I can class you as a subhuman or not worthy of life, or you could do the same with me, and it boils down to who holds power will determine who lives and who dies. Do you think that is just, and how do you ever arrive at justice outside of an objective, absolute, unchanging reference point? Do you have such a point of reference? If you do, I want to hear about what it is and how you justify it as such. If not, why is your "opinion" any better than any other, and how can you have a "better" without a "best?" Do you arbitrarily choose the better by a matter of opinion? Without a fixed best, how are moral measurements made? Better than what?

These are questions you need to explain, or else how do you justify taking an innocent human life that you don't even know is a personal being? That is the glaring weakness of your side of the debate. It is pathetic that you keep side-stepping this most crucial point. "I don't know what it is; just kill it."

YOU: "If you’re placing it based on religion, then it depends whose religious beliefs are correct. Determining whether your religion is the right one, or at least more accurate, would require having another, separate debate that I’m honestly not interested in having."

It is a shame if you take no interest in testing the ultimate questions of life, the questions of WHAT are we, WHO are we, HOW we got here, or WHY it matters and what happens to us when we die. Those are religious or philosophical questions in that science cannot determine them. Science does not have the answers for them, as you have so rightly pointed out. And since each religious view (and your view as a scientist also attempts to answer the exact same questions that religions address) states different things, it means only one, if any, can be true. Again, which is the most reasonable to believe? That can only be examined by dissecting the truth claims of each one and finding out how consistent they are with what is, in which case science fails miserably.

To you, the question of its humanity is up for debate, although science places the start of a new, distinct individual human being at conception and fertilization. Something new begins to grow when the sperm penetrates the egg. Chromosomes from the sperm and egg combine to create a new organism, a human being, if the sperm and egg are also human, NOT JUST A CLUMP OF CELLS.

YOU: "The other perspective is largely based on a through-line, typified by this quote of yours:

(ME) “Within the nature of human beings, if allowed to live and develop, that first cell at fertilization will emerge as a human being and, therefore, a personal being.”

Scientific texts verify that human life begins at fertilization. If you doubt this, show the evidence it is not the case. You did not do that in the debate; you just claimed things to be so.

I don’t think the question of personhood and when it begins is productive. If you’re placing it based on religion, then it depends whose religious beliefs are correct. Determining whether your religion is the right one, or at least more accurate, would require having another, separate debate that I’m honestly not interested in having. The other perspective is largely based on a through-line, typified by this quote of yours:

“Within the nature of human beings, if allowed to live and develop, that first cell at fertilization will emerge as a human being and, therefore, a personal being.”

Branching off of that, you’ve made the point that we should essentially give all stages of life along this line the benefit of the doubt. I have two problems with this.

One, I’m not sure why you start at fertilization. What is it about that particular step that makes it the definitive “first”? We’ve already agreed that there are no empirically defined traits that confer any stage of development with personhood, so what is it about the zygote that renders it a person, while the separate sperm and ovum is not? They are part of that through-line leading to a personal being, right? I’m not sure why they’re cut out of this.

Two, and connected to the first, what happens when this process is interrupted? Your argument was that someone who is a personal being has always been one, but we can only verify that for people who have incontrovertibly become personal beings. Anyone who doesn’t reach that point, i.e. the point of self-consciousness, cannot be verified in the same sense. For that matter, I’d say it’s at least unclear whether someone has always been a personal being or became a personal being over the course of their development, which renders the assertion that one who is a person has always been a person from conception.

The result is that I don’t assign personhood to the unborn. We can and must assign personhood to humans, so I simply don’t do it developmentally. Persons are those who have reached the point of viability, i.e. the ability to live outside the mother’s womb. I fully admit it’s arbitrary, though my basis for selecting that isn’t for any acquisition of traits or personhood, but rather due to the legal, social, and medical realities inherent to reproduction as it relates to society. Pre-viability runs aground of these problems, post-viability does not.

I'd call all this the short version. There's a good deal of reasoning that I haven't included, though I'm presenting this as a basis for discussion that will likely last a while, so I open it up for your consideration.

YOU: "I appreciate that you’ve addressed the point, and as such will end this portion of our discussion and focus on the bigger picture of why I hold my views, as well as what they are, since you and I appear to see them differently. When I get home, I’ll write up a breakdown of my perspective on the issue."

Thank you, Whiteflame! That was easy. (^8

YOU: "Is the beginning of personhood empirically, scientifically defined, and if so, what traits/criteria define it?"

I say no, not scientifically and not empirically. Thus, the Unborn should be given the benefit of the doubt by science and by law. Science and the law should not assume it is not a personal being, not as human as other human beings. The traits we recognize as personal are not outwardly present at conception, neither are its limbs, arms, legs and other features we recognize are evident of its human nature, except that dot we can say is an individual human being. It is not some other kind of being. It is not a potential being. It actually is a human being, and with its humanity comes its personhood. If you believe otherwise, give me good reasons that you believe personal traits are acquired, not provided due to their nature but by an outside factor or factors.

Human nature or its humanity is acknowledged by science at conception as verifiable. A new individual human begins at fertilization.

I appreciate that you’ve addressed the point, and as such will end this portion of our discussion and focus on the bigger picture of why I hold my views, as well as what they are, since you and I appear to see them differently. When I get home, I’ll write up a breakdown of my perspective on the issue.

YOU: "It’s been my point since the start that personhood isn’t defined biologically, and that it’s starting point is therefore not empirically derived. You seem to be agreeing with this to some extent now because you are saying that science can’t determine what is moral. I agree. The problem is, has been, and will continue to be (until you address it clearly in some way, shape or form) that you (not me) have argued that there is an empirically defined starting point for personhood. You have somewhat vaguely kept affirming this by arguing that the scientific community has some consensus on the issue, one you have yet to clearly define."

I agree that science does not give an exact time when personhood starts, scientists do, and the opinions are not consistent, so from a scientific perspective, there is much argument and disagreement. I concede that point to you that science does not know based on biology or empiricism. Does that mean that we cannot know? It depends on what you consider your highest authority. To which I say, when the human being begins to be, so does a personal being, per my highest authority (not science) and by reason (not mine). I argue that if science (scientists) does not know that a human being is a personal being, there is something wrong with such thinking. It is a self-evident truth. Within the nature of human beings, if allowed to live and develop, that first cell at fertilization will emerge as a human being and, therefore, a personal being. It has a point of when it is a human being (conception), and human beings are personal beings. Do you believe human beings are personal beings? If so, when do you recognize their personhood and how do you distinguish what is a person?

In your response, I’m still seeing you dance around the question. Statements like this:

“The currently held belief on the question of personhood may include consciousness, or reasoning, or the ability to communicate”

Don’t tell me that there is or isn’t an empirically derived threshold for personhood. They tell me what you disagree with that some people believe should be the threshold for personhood, which we already have agreed is arbitrary. So, I’ll ask again and note that I’m not looking for a drawn out answer where you tell me how else it should be defined. I’m aware that this is not your preferred way of defining the beginning of personhood, but again, you have said multiple times that it is scientifically (meaning empirically) defined. I keep asking this question open-ended and you keep moving onto other subjects instead of answering it directly, so please, I’m begging you, provide a short answer for the following question:

Is the beginning of personhood empirically, scientifically defined, and if so, what traits/criteria define it?

YOU: "And even in those, I'm still unclear about a lot of factors. You're now arguing that artificial attempts to generate a person don't preclude ascribing the result personhood, so an embryo that is grown outside of the womb is a person because, eventually, it will be transplanted. What if it isn't? Should we count it as a person all the same? And, if and when we do create an artificial womb that can be used to gestate in vitro fertilized embryos, will the result still be a person? I'm honestly asking because you made this delineation - you included a delineation between artificial methods and natural methods, not me. So I'm curious [about] when something is not a person because of artificial impositions. Where's the cutoff?"

I'm curious as to when you think this is too. When can you say, for sure??? I believe, as I have stated before, that a personal being begins when it begins to live based on the Bible, which claims to be the word of God. That is reasonable to believe. It is an authority that claims to be our highest authority and has many justifications as to why that makes sense.

Now, you have to tell me what constitutes a person in your opinion and by your appeal and justification to an authority, you believe as meriting belief, besides yourself, and whether that personhood can be inside the womb or strictly outside because the law defends personhood outside the womb but not inside the womb.

I can argue that outside the womb, personhood would begin from Day 1. Surely you know whether Personghood begins inside or outside, or do you only grant it outside, and how far outside the womb (Location/environment)? Do you want to include others (i.e., the newborn, those in a coma, etc.) as not being persons? Outside the womb would mean that even by artificial means that start an individual human life produce personhood because the essence or nature of the being in question starts where the law ascribes personhood unless, of course, not all those outside the womb are persons. Which would you say may qualify as not being persons? Please delineate which you believe are and are not. Rights are applied, from what I see, to those outside the womb. So, IF the individual has to meet the criteria of "being a person" by "being outside the womb," then the artificially inseminated sperm with the egg must be considered a person. So, when it is placed back inside the womb (location/environment), say three weeks later, does it cease being a person and once again lose its rights until it is again outside the womb?

YOU: "The rest of this response is moving past the issue, and again, I don't think I even have a clear answer from you yet. If there's a scientific consensus regarding personhood and when it starts, don't just tell me that one exists and send me a bunch of links, tell me how they arrived at it. A consensus in the scientific community doesn't just spring up from personal opinion, it comes from clear delineations and broad agreement about those delineations. If you want to argue that I'm wrong to believe how I do, we can get to that after we've passed what I thought would be a simple baseline of understanding that I still don't believe we have. Honestly, I thought I'd get a clear answer by now and just be done with this part. I also don't appreciate having my position continually mischaracterized, though again, I'll come back to that after we've cleared this portion of the discussion."

The currently held belief on the question of personhood may include consciousness, or reasoning, or the ability to communicate, but the question is whether that comes from the nature or essence of the being, like flying to a bird, or by some acquired trait picked up after conception or birth. It is in the nature of a bird to fly by itself without artificial means, but not so in the nature of a human. It is in the nature of a fish to survive underwater because of its natural ability. If you think the trait is acquired, how many babies are you going to drop into the deep end of a pool trying to demonstrate that the trait will eventually be acquired? It is not in the nature of a human unless it is done via an artificial environment or mechanism foreign to its natural ability in itself. I argue it is in the natural ability of the human to be a person. That said, some humans cannot grow fully into their natures (two arms, two legs, a nose, mouth, the ability to communicate openly, a personality) because their lives are taken before the signs or traits we ascribe to personhood become apparent. That does not mean they are not there within the individual, just not seen or understood yet. And on this very point, it is you who is seen by the ultrasound at two months or eight months, not some other being. You say to yourself, "That is me!" You have an identity even while forming in the womb.

You’re mistaking my focus on a single point with rejection of all other possibilities. I’ve said (now several times) that it is my aim to establish a baseline of agreement in some way, shape or form before proceeding onto other issues. That’s not a rejection of non-empirical reasoning, that’s simply an attempt to address one key issue that’s rather important for understanding my perspective. It’s what I’ve been trying to do since we started discussing this in the comments of this debate. Again, you keep trying to move past this issue without giving me a straight answer, so yes, I’m pretty stuck on this.

It’s been my point since the start that personhood isn’t defined biologically, and that it’s starting point is therefore not empirically derived. You seem to be agreeing with this to some extent now because you are saying that science can’t determine what is moral. I agree. The problem is, has been, and will continue to be (until you address it clearly in some way, shape or form) that you (not me) have argued that there is an empirically defined starting point for personhood. You have somewhat vaguely kept affirming this by arguing that the scientific community has some consensus on the issue, one you have yet to clearly define.

If you want me to answer your questions regarding how I view the unborn and the ethics of the issue, I need a clear answer on this, otherwise we’ll just keep returning to this issue over and over again. I think I’ve already given some of those answers in the context of the debate, and perhaps that’s why you keep turning to it, but I’ll be straight up: I’m not going there until we resolve this. When we discussed this via PM, I was willing to go down every possible road and just keep branching on the topic. I want to keep this focused so that we can make some headway. If you want me to give a breakdown of my position, I can, but it requires this as a baseline and I’d rather know how much or how little agreement we have here. I still don’t know, and we’ve been doing this for days.

So, please, I’m asking you to give me a straightforward answer on whether there exist empirically proven biological criteria for the beginning of personhood. Either way, if you answer that, we can finally move on.

YOU: "I also don't know why you keep delineating between science and scientism, or for that matter, why you keep responding to points I'm not making. If you see scientism in my argument, feel free to point it out, but my point to date has only been that no individual trait or set of traits delineates between a human and a human being/person. That doesn't involve separating "a human being and a person via some stage of growth and development" - in fact, I've continually argued that doing so is arbitrary. I have, however, argued that being human as ascribed by traits is in many cases distinct from being a human being/person. You've agreed to that over the course of this discussion since you agree that not all cells that are clearly human are themselves individual human beings. You've given me a set of traits that you believe delineate between a human person and a human non-person, though so far, you haven't committed to arguing that science ascribes these traits as the beginning of personhood. You've said now that "Its "being" or "essence" starts at conception. That is a consensus of science.", though that's another dodge around my question. Science doesn't engage in concepts of "being" or "essence" - it uses empirical evidence (in this case, some marked traits) to distinguish organisms. If science has determined what those traits are that make a person, please, present them. So far, what I've seen from you are your personal views of what those traits should be."

On the first point, there is a difference between science and scientism. The origins of so many things are not known by science. Thus, in determining whether the Unborn is a person is not science, as you have pointed out, but scientism for anyone scientist who claims to know. Also, with the problem of ethics and science, science does not determine ethics, nor can it. It just determines the is, not the ought. There must be a better standard than science in determining what ought to be. It also can't be the relative, subjective opinion of a person or group because that begs, "why are they RIGHT?" Because they say so? The standard cannot be relative, or else it is constantly changing. How can something that is constantly changing be considered right in the moral sense? Before Roe v. Wade, the opinion on abortion was overwhelmingly negative. People believed it was wrong, and the law prohibited it on most occasions. When abortion became the law of the land, what was once considered wrong was now considered right. So which is the actual case - the RIGHT? How can you tell? More to the point, which is better, then or now? How do you determine better if there is no "BEST" or fixed standard? Relativism has no fixed standard. So justify why your position, on these grounds, is more reasonable, or point to a fixed, ultimate standard that can explain morality.

YOU: "I asked you at the start whether this was an open discussion of our positions on the issue or whether you wanted to dig into the debate. Up until now, it's been the former. Now, you're making it the latter. I'm not going to try to do both simultaneously, so if you have responses to my points from the debate, we can either drop the issues we've been discussing up until now and get into my points from the debate in more detail, or we can continue along the lines on which we already started. Your choice."

Both are beneficial in understanding and considering what is happening here and whether it should or should not be legal, IMO. I am taking examples from the debate to query whether your stance is morally justifiable and reasonably acceptable. My aim is to turn this to the heart of the issue, what is being missed and forgotten in trying to justify the woman alone or, more so, in the case of the law of the land and the legality of abortion. To my mind, abortion should only be granted in extremely narrow cases, not an open free-for-all for whoever chooses, based on their bodily rights alone. What about the Unborn's bodily rights? That would depend on what it is. What is more reasonable to believe it is?

I already understand that you don't know when personhood begins. What is more reasonable to believe? Is it more reasonable to believe that personhood is a trait or attribute of being human, or is it an acquired trait foreign to humanness that we somehow acquire from somewhere other than ourselves as human beings, somewhere along the growth period of being a human being? And if we somehow miraculously acquire this trait from something external to ourselves (i.e., not built into our own human nature), where does it come from?

The same goes for being human. If you don't know when humanness begins, how can you support or advocate for the Pro-choice position? Surely you should give the Unborn the benefit of the doubt, as Bones pointed out. And if you do know, how can you advocate for the Pro-choice position? If you know and are willing to give your nod for its death still, then you do not value every human life as morally intrinsic or worth saving. Therefore, when it comes to your own life or someone you love, and someone deems your humanness worthless (or that of your loved one), has the power to take it, and decides to kill you (and is permitted by law), how can you be outraged or try to justify your position as anything other than your opinion because you do not recognize the moral (the rightness) value of human life?

What I am looking for is for you to show me that your reasoning is better or more reasonable than mine, or Bones, in the position taken. I don't think you did that in the debate, although I also don't think Bones pushed you into a corner as much as I would have liked to show the unreasonableness of your Pro-choice position because that is what it boils down to - pro-life as opposed to pro-choice.

We have bearly touched on the subject of ethics and how we know what we know to be right and true. Is it all done on the subjective opinions we hold, or do you see moral value as needing a stronger, more secure and objective standard and measure? In other words, is this all relative, or is there an ultimate standard and reference point of appeal? The gall to say, "This is right because I say so," or "This is right because the majority says so." As if that makes something right. It only makes it doable.

YOU: "Wow, I clearly have been bad at communicating this if that's your take-away.

It's never been my argument (either in this debate or elsewhere) that one cannot know anything that cannot be empirically proven, and while I have problems with the claim that God or any other entity has provided us with this specific knowledge of when a person begins, I haven't actually made that argument yet in this discussion. My sole point is and has been that there is no way to empirically determine when a person begins scientifically, and therefore that no one can know based solely on empirical evidence when a person begins. It's not a dichotomy because I'm not setting scientific evidence at odds with faith-based knowledge or any other kind of reasoning. I haven't even made any points about why this specific mode of acquiring knowledge should be preferred, so I'm not sure where you're getting a dichotomy in this."

I'm glad to hear that. To my mind, you seem to be doing so by only granting or taking into account empirical evidence, and you even admit that you have problems with the claim "that God" has given us proof. I continually claim that it reflects on your worldview and where your ultimate authority lies. Do you not grant that?

Personhood is a self-evident truth, is it not? Are not human beings personal beings? Is that not their nature? Is it not the substance of what it means to be a human being?

noun
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human%20being
***
hu·​man
1
: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans

3
a
: having human form or attributes

b
: representative of or susceptible to the sympathies and frailties of human nature

noun
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : a person
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human

YOU: "My sole point is and has been that there is no way to empirically determine when a person begins scientifically, and therefore that no one can know based solely on empirical evidence when a person begins."

Thus, there needs to be another way of determining this, or else how will you not know whether you discriminate against the Unborn human being in your stance when you don't even know, nor can you prove your point? Your only point is it is not empirically justifiable. My point is that science cannot morally justify anything. Your point, "I don't know; therefore, it cannot be settled." My point is, "Then why kill the Unborn on such grounds as to its personhood as a reason, or lack thereof if that point is undeterminable by you or those who think the way you do?"

That is why I brought up the question of whether all human beings are intrinsically valuable. If you think so, then why are you NOT defending the rights of the Unborn? If not all humans, then which are intrinsically valuable to you? Can you just pick and choose based on your preference because of your one-sided evidence base (what you presented in your debate stance - the woman, the woman, the woman - while forgetting that the Unborn is also a human being)? You do pick and choose all through this debate which has intrinsic value - the woman. You did not acknowledge the Unborn, except to advocate for its lesser position.

So, once again, we circle around to the important question, and I can't overemphasize this enough, "What is the Unborn?" "Is it human?" "If it is human, why are you ignoring its humanness?" "If it is not human, when does it become human?"

If you don't know, and even science tends to present the Unborn as human, then you should give it the benefit of the doubt rather than sanctioning a vote against its existence if the woman so chooses. That is exactly what you are doing with your stance, but you are trying to justify your words by hiding the implications behind them.

If you do know it is human, then are you not promoting its murder, an accomplice? If you don't know, then what makes you any better than Hitler in what he did to your own people, granting that he did not know they were human beings but thought of them as subhuman (like hell he did not know)? That should be a consideration. I know it is a hard point, and one I don't like bringing up but do so that the implication may be seen for what it is. What are you doing that is different from what Hitler and the Nazi machine did in that you are ignoring, devaluing, discriminating, and dehumanizing a class of people to death by supporting such a vile law that is not just.

I asked you at the start whether this was an open discussion of our positions on the issue or whether you wanted to dig into the debate. Up until now, it's been the former. Now, you're making it the latter. I'm not going to try to do both simultaneously, so if you have responses to my points from the debate, we can either drop the issues we've been discussing up until now and get into my points from the debate in more detail, or we can continue along the lines on which we already started. Your choice.

YOU: "Adoption is a red herring. It remains an option for those considering abortion, and structural violence is inflicted no matter who gets the child."

Adoption as opposed to killing the Unborn? Your premise here works on the idea that two wrongs make a right. Yes, it is wrong to inflict unwarranted structural damage on the woman, but it is also wrong to inflict unwarranted structural damage on the Unborn, especially since it has done NOTHING wrong. Your arguments neglect or ignore the Unborn. That human being is forgotten unless you can prove it is not a human being and also show that human beings are not intrinsically valuable.

***

YOU: "V. Conclusion

Pro really wants this debate to be solely about the morality of abortion divorced from policy. Yet, this debate is about policy, which deals in real world solvency and consequences. Turning a blind eye to those consequences yields structural violence, destroying lives for some purported “greater good.” In this case, Pro does not even achieve tangible benefits as he willfully dismisses the harms his ban would cause. Pro wants to stand on symbolism, but if doing so rejects the needs of women and perverts the medical system, then his stance isn't worth the cost."

Again, your whole argument takes no account of the irretrievable harms of what is being done to the Unborn. It is all a one-sided concern. It takes no thought, not a one, for the Unborn and what is being done to it.

YOU: "c. The Dopamine Room

This is an oversimplification, reducing all considerations to consent alone (i.e. if those who enter the room accept the consequences, then the harms of those risks cease to be important). The room isn’t comparable to conception."

I think the example or analogy is very clear, comparing the analogy to consent and responsibility. The two people (assuming they are within the biological timeframe) know there is a chance of pregnancy when intercourse takes place and, with it, a responsibility as the person entering the room knows there is a chance they will be saddled with another person for a year (as opposed to nine months).

The "structural violence" (presumably rape or non-consent of the woman) still does not consider the worth of the Unborn. Likewise, the unborn did not consent to the structural violence to itself either, the taking of its life. WHY IS THIS FORGOTTEN about by the Pro-choice side, or when it is acknowledged (very seldom, IMO), it is sloughed off as unimportant?

***

YOU: "Pro’s argument violates the latter argument, as he arbitrarily selects fertilization as the beginning of a human being. Pro believes that fertilization uniquely confers personhood, but he begs the question: what criteria for personhood does it satisfy that separate gametes do not? Pro appeals to popularity among “biologists” as vague authorities but that just begs the question of what criteria they use. Pro’s three inconsequential differences - level of development, environment, and degree of dependency - apply equally well to phases pre- and post-fertilization."

I don't understand how it violates the latter argument unless you ignore that the Unborn is also a human being who is suffering irretrievable structural damage, the loss of its life. As for fertilization, what evidence did you provide that this was not the case, the beginning of its humanity?

Your argument is weak because you cannot determine when personhood begins. If that is the case, you SHOULD favour the side of caution and allow it its human existence. It also begs the question of what criteria you are using. Logically, I find the three arguments - level of development, degree of dependency, and the environment extremely effective arguments. I can explain more regarding those three later if you so desire.

YOU: "Pro calls this uncertainty “morally indefensible and legally unacceptable,” but his warrant for that point focuses on the arbitrary selection of criteria for personhood. Nowhere in any of his arguments does he explain why uncertainty is, itself, harmful. And yes, that includes the next argument."

Uncertainty from your stance point seems to ignore or does not consider what is being killed. I believe he does take that into account, just not as forcefully as I am doing. He establishes that the Unborn is a human being. He explains that it should be morally wrong to kill human beings by using abortion because abortion is not a "just" law. Abortion(my belief), on balance, is not justified, except for a few exceptions. Those exceptions are perfectly acceptable, but the large majority are not; thus, on balance, it should be illegal.

YOU, R3: "Like the next analogy, this argument assumes that abortion is immoral. It is broadly agreed that theft (and slavery) is immoral. The same is not true for abortion, regardless of Pro’s assertions. We cannot presume the immorality of abortion, though even if we did, that does not make a policy banning it moral. If the ban bars individuals who had morally justified reasons for seeking out an abortion, then the morality of a ban is mixed. Also, whether we’re talking about theft or abortion, if a ban failed to decrease the number of thefts and increased structural violence, then the ban is clearly flawed and the response ought be changed."

The killing of an innocent human being without just cause is immoral, yes? Again, we have a dehumanizing and devaluation of a human being, the Unborn, by saying that abortion is not immoral, while theft and slavery are immoral, and that the murder of an innocent human being cannot be considered immoral - really? How is a policy banning murder (killing the innocent) not moral? I think you should obtain for yourself the book, "Dehumanizing the Vulnerable, When Word Games Take Lives," by William Brennan.

Back cover: "This hard-hitting study shows how dehumanizing language was and is being used to justify violent acts against victim, past and present...He explores a commonly neglected linkage: language used against the unborn and born today is often identical with language used to revile some of history's most victimized - and innocent - peoples."

https://www.amazon.ca/Dehumanizing-Vulnerable-When-Games-Lives/dp/0919225195

If you don't find that convincing, may I suggest reading "Less than human, Why we demean, enslave, and exterminate others" by David Livingstone Smith.

https://www.amazon.ca/Less-Than-Human-Enslave-Exterminate/dp/1250003830/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3OPZ8UELSI5A2&keywords=less+than+human+why+we+demean&qid=1668883930&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIwLjEzIiwicXNhIjoiMC4wMCIsInFzcCI6IjAuMDAifQ%3D%3D&s=books&sprefix=less+than+human+why+we+demean%2Cstripbooks%2C78&sr=1-1

YOU: "b. Slavery analogy

This argument ignores the harms of a ban and focuses solely on his lack of solvency. If banning slavery accomplished nothing and resulted in dramatic increases in structural violence, then yes, the ban would be harmful no matter the principle it upholds."

I think this is a poor argument on your behalf.

The question is not what the harm of the ban accomplished but whether it is morally justifiable or not. We are speaking of whether abortion should be legal based on whether it is right or not. The outcome (increase in crime, breaking the law) does not always reflect the "rightness" of something. For example, when nothing is done, as in so many US Democrat-run cities and on border States, people feel free to lawbreaker to a larger degree, as is witnessed by these two examples because laws are NOT enforced.

Wow, I clearly have been bad at communicating this if that's your take-away.

It's never been my argument (either in this debate or elsewhere) that one cannot know anything that cannot be empirically proven, and while I have problems with the claim that God or any other entity has provided us with this specific knowledge of when a person begins, I haven't actually made that argument yet in this discussion. My sole point is and has been that there is no way to empirically determine when a person begins scientifically, and therefore that no one can know based solely on empirical evidence when a person begins. It's not a dichotomy because I'm not setting scientific evidence at odds with faith-based knowledge or any other kind of reasoning. I haven't even made any points about why this specific mode of acquiring knowledge should be preferred, so I'm not sure where you're getting a dichotomy in this.

I also don't know why you keep delineating between science and scientism, or for that matter, why you keep responding to points I'm not making. If you see scientism in my argument, feel free to point it out, but my point to date has only been that no individual trait or set of traits delineates between a human and a human being/person. That doesn't involve separating "a human being and a person via some stage of growth and development" - in fact, I've continually argued that doing so is arbitrary. I have, however, argued that being human as ascribed by traits is in many cases distinct from being a human being/person. You've agreed to that over the course of this discussion since you agree that not all cells that are clearly human are themselves individual human beings. You've given me a set of traits that you believe delineate between a human person and a human non-person, though so far, you haven't committed to arguing that science ascribes these traits as the beginning of personhood. You've said now that "Its "being" or "essence" starts at conception. That is a consensus of science.", though that's another dodge around my question. Science doesn't engage in concepts of "being" or "essence" - it uses empirical evidence (in this case, some marked traits) to distinguish organisms. If science has determined what those traits are that make a person, please, present them. So far, what I've seen from you are your personal views of what those traits should be.

And even in those, I'm still unclear about a lot of factors. You're now arguing that artificial attempts to generate a person don't preclude ascribing the result personhood, so an embryo that is grown outside of the womb is a person because, eventually, it will be transplanted. What if it isn't? Should we count it as a person all the same? And, if and when we do create an artificial womb that can be used to gestate in vitro fertilized embryos, will the result still be a person? I'm honestly asking because you made this delineation - you included a delineation between artificial methods and natural methods, not me. So I'm curious as to when something is not a person because of artificial impositions. Where's the cutoff?

The rest of this response is moving past the issue, and again, I don't think I even have a clear answer from you yet. If there's a scientific consensus regarding personhood and when it starts, don't just tell me that one exists and send me a bunch of links, tell me how they arrived at it. A consensus in the scientific community doesn't just spring up from personal opinion, it comes from clear delineations and broad agreement about those delineations. If you want to argue that I'm wrong to believe how I do, we can get to that after we've passed what I thought would be a simple baseline of understanding that I still don't believe we have. Honestly, I thought I'd get a clear answer by now and just be done with this part. I also don't appreciate having my position continually mischaracterized, though again, I'll come back to that after we've cleared this portion of the discussion.

YOU: "The problem I'm having with your characterization of human nature is that you're reducing it to the biological, i.e. those things that "can be known and verified." They are derived from a sperm and ovum, they go through conception, they generate an individual and separate living organism. Those are all verifiable steps with specific traits that we can identify. Distinguishing a human sperm from a gorilla sperm is also about traits, mainly DNA. But then you go on to say that there's some nebulous "nature" that you cannot define, something distinct from these elements, a part of the ontological aspect. I don't even know what Haeckel's embryos are, and I'm not separating different stages of growth, so I don't know what you think I'm doing here."

ME: "Yes, you identify them as persons correctly. Human male sperm and human female egg are the prerequisites for producing a human being. Yes, that can be done artificially now. That was not the case centuries ago and it is not natural but artificial."

YOU: "...But doesn't this run contrary to what you just said about what distinguishes persons from non-persons?"

"YOU: "3) Must do so in the absence of any artificial means."

ME: "By any intelligent attempts or means to alter its nature since God deemed it what it is."

YOU: "If this generates a person, then #3 must be an inaccurate characterization of your position."

We can know because God has spoken and told us as much. Science is just a confirmation of His word.

What happens when a sperm and egg are artificially fertilized (in-vitro fertilization) is that mating is replaced by an artificial means, yet at the point of fertilization, a unique and different human being still starts to grow. It is not part of the woman's body (the uterus), but the newly growing individual still needs the woman's body to aid in its development. It can only last so long before it dies apart from living in the uterus.

***

ME: "Do you believe you are killing a human being? Please answer that. You seem to skip by that time and again."

YOU: "Pretty sure I clarified this in the debate numerous times, hence I didn't feel that it was necessary to clarify it again here after you read this debate. But fine, I'll give you the same answer I gave Bones: since I can't determine that it is a person, my answer is that I am uncertain. Is the unborn at all stages of development a human being? I don't know."

You are uncertain it is a human being - "I don't know."

I believe that uncertainty could reflect on your own personal bias on the issue, not the consensus from science, because of the implications the Unborn definitely being a human being from conception imposes on your stance and the Pro-choice stance. Pro-choice is killing (consenting to murder) an innocent human being. It would mean that the Pro-choice stance is no better morally than that of Hitler in the way that it supports marginalizing and discriminating against a class of human beings as he did, basically on the whim of the woman. If she decides it dies, it dies. And declassifying it to a potential human being (i.e., not sure) DEHUMANIZES and DEVALUES what it is - its true identity. Classifying it as such makes it something other than what it is. If you are not sure, THEN you should give it the benefit of the doubt, shouldn't you??? Yet that is not what you are advocating for in your debate. You are advocating for its legal killing on the whim of the pregnant woman.

To me, that is appalling. The significance of such a stance is that it opens the door wide for more marginalizing of human beings on preference rather than moral grounds instead of defending them on the basis of what they are. It leads to all kinds of human atrocities, the greatest of which is the killing of over 1.5 billion unborn human beings since Roe V. Wade. How can that be so cavalierly done? Can you imagine the moral outrage or the moral silence if 1.5 billion Chinese, Caucasians, Indians, or a specific class of people were killed because they were deemed not as fit or not as human as others? I hope you can because that is what is being done to the unborn human being, the most defenceless and vulnerable of all human beings. How can human beings do that so indiscriminately to other human beings, yet they do? That is why highlighting the point is so important. It is something that SHOULD NOT be done.

It is also something that brings us to the next topic of conversation, do you think that all human beings should have intrinsic value?

Regarding Haeckel: https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/haeckels-embryos-the-images-that-would-not-go-away

YOU: "I'm not dichotomizing. I'm focusing in on the first, and leaving the second for later discussion. As I recall, we had a habit of going off in a few different directions in our discussions about abortion, which inevitably resulted in long, rambling posts (I'm particularly guilty of that) and having to revisit points over and over. My goal is to get this particular portion of the discussion behind us so that we can focus in on other concerns."

I think you are dichotomizing between science and faith, and physical and non-physical, that only through one means can anything be known or proven. You have already admitted several times that you can't know when personhood begins, nor do you believe anyone else can because if science can't tell you or prove something, you believe you can't have certainty. I, on the contrary, am saying that God is the necessary being in determining some things (I would argue all truths stem from Him), things regarding origins or beginnings, not science. God makes no distinction between when a person begins in the womb (and they begin in the womb), as the author of Psalm 139 points out. He says,

13. "For You created my innermost parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will give thanks to You, because [a]I am awesomely and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.

The author talks about himself as a person, not a blob of matter, but when he is in his mother's womb. The same can be said about John the Baptist, as revealed by the messenger or angel of the Lord, Gabriel when speaking to Zechariah,

"15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit [m]while still in his mother’s womb."

"He" signifies personhood. (The third PERSON, singular pronoun)

So, as I said before, your knowledge relies on authority, but it seems you cannot accept that the biblical God is the greatest authority. It SEEMS anathema to you, in my eyes, because you seem to place science above God with respect to authority. Thus, the dichotomy. For me, science (not scientism) works in conjunction with God to confirm His words of truth, and to me, God has revealed things that science cannot prove, as you point out. Because science cannot give you an exact date or time on when a human being becomes a person, you question whether it can be known. God treats the unborn as completely human without a stage. Scientism dissects it into a human being and a person via some stage of growth and development. Not only this, it is reasonable to believe that personhood is an attribute of being human. As witnessed by the growth of human beings, their nature conforms to an identity; no matter how developed, they are humans, not some other kind of being. You are losing the identity of the thing, a human being, when you fail to recognize or grant it is human from the moment it becomes a separate, unique, individual organism - fertilization/conception. If you want to call that a process, that is fine, yet when the sperm penetrates the ovum, a new life BEGINS to exist.

Human beings have a specific identity. That is why your comment below is so disconcerting and alarming:

YOU: "But fine, I'll give you the same answer I gave Bones: since I can't determine that it is a person, my answer is that I am uncertain. Is the unborn AT ALL STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT A HUMAN BEING? I DON'T KNOW."

If it is not a human being at all stages of development, what kind of being is it? Its "being" or "essence" starts at conception. That is a consensus of science.

https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins
https://evolutionnews.org/2020/02/when-does-human-life-begin/
https://intellectualtakeout.org/2021/12/what-science-says-about-when-life-begins/
https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/scientists-attest-life-beginning-conception/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/scientifically-when-does-human-life-begin/

"I'm just making a point that understanding what the unborn is requires more than biology and science. That only takes you so far, then you plead ignorance and uncertainty."

Technically incorrect. I argued that we are all ignorant on this issue when it comes to issues of biology and science, not just that I personally am ignorant and therefore uncertain, though I agree insofar as uncertainty is an accurate characterization of my position.

"Yes, I do want to hear your justification for when personhood begins, among other things, because it plays a central part in most debates on abortion, including this one and Roe V. Wade. The legalization of abortion, except in rare instances, was made possible in part by the court's understanding of personhood. You admitted you don't know when personhood begins, but I want to hear when you believe and the reasons for that belief."

I haven't given one and I don't plan to do so. I don't believe it's possible to determine precisely when personhood begins, I think I made that abundantly clear. My belief falls in line with that uncertainty, so I don't know why you're expecting a distinct answer to that request. I agree that if we had that answer, it should be central to the debate on abortion. I don't agree that we have it.

"My stance on personhood is from a self-evident perspective and common sense. From a scientific perspective, we know what a human being is, and that it is different from other types of beings. We know that a human being's nature is a personal nature. It deals with what the Unborn is - a human being and the nature of human beings. It also seeks to find out, how from a biological perspective how such a thing can be known and if there is a better or more reasonable explanation. I think I conveyed that."

You conveyed that, but you haven't answered my question, at least not in any form that I can nail down. Do you believe that science has empirically proven when personhood begins? Your position appears to be ontological and derived (at least in part) from the scientific definition of what a human is, but that's not the same thing. Do you believe that science has deduced the exact set of traits necessary for an entity to be designated a person?

I'm not dichotomizing. I'm focusing in on the first, and leaving the second for later discussion. As I recall, we had a habit of going off in a few different directions in our discussions about abortion, which inevitably resulted in long, rambling posts (I'm particularly guilty of that) and having to revisit points over and over. My goal is to get this particular portion of the discussion behind us so that we can focus in on other concerns.

The problem I'm having with your characterization of human nature is that you're reducing it to the biological, i.e. those things that "can be known and verified." They are derived from a sperm and ovum, they go through conception, they generate an individual and separate living organism. Those are all verifiable steps with specific traits that we can identify. Distinguishing a human sperm from a gorilla sperm is also about traits, mainly DNA. But then you go on to say that there's some nebulous "nature" that you cannot define, something distinct from these elements, a part of the ontological aspect. I don't even know what Haeckel's embryos are, and I'm not separating different stages of growth, so I don't know what you think I'm doing here.

"Yes, you identify them as persons correctly. Human male sperm and human female egg are the prerequisites for producing a human being. Yes, that can be done artificially now. That was not the case centuries ago nd it is not natural but artificial."

...But doesn't this run contrary to what you just said about what distinguishes persons from non-persons?

"YOU: "3) Must do so in the absence of any artificial means."

By any intelligent attempts or means to alter its nature since God deemed it what it is."

If this generates a person, then #3 must be an inaccurate characterization of your position.

"Do you believe you are killing a human being? Please answer that. You seem to skip by that time and again."

Pretty sure I clarified this in the debate numerous times, hence I didn't feel that it was necessary to clarify it again here after you read this debate. But fine, I'll give you the same answer I gave Bones: since I can't determine that it is a person, my answer is that I am uncertain. Is the unborn at all stages of development a human being? I don't know.

YOU: "You seem to have downshifted into a religious stance on the issue, and while I'm not going to challenge you on that basis, that is your perspective and rather distinct from mine. My impression was that you wanted to understand what leads me to my views on abortion, and you initially challenged me (several times in that first set of posts) on the basis that you believe that there is a scientific basis for the start of personhood. You're right, my perspective on personhood is largely driven by what we can empirically prove. It's fine if you think other issues should be paramount, but that's going beyond the issues we've been discussing and I'd like to get past this first. So, forgive me if I'm coming off as stubborn on this, but again, it was your perspective (unless I misread it) that there is a scientifically proven point at which personhood begins. If I'm wrong on that, if we're on the same page that there is no empirical means by which we can determine when personhood begins, then we can count the issue as agreed and move on with that as a baseline. If we can't, then I'd like to wrap that up before we move onto other issues."

I'm just making a point that understanding what the unborn is requires more than biology and science. That only takes you so far, then you plead ignorance and uncertainty.

YOU: "My impression was that you wanted to understand what leads me to my views on abortion, and you initially challenged me (several times in that first set of posts) on the basis that you believe that there is a scientific basis for the start of personhood."

Yes, I do want to hear your justification for when personhood begins, among other things, because it plays a central part in most debates on abortion, including this one and Roe V. Wade. The legalization of abortion, except in rare instances, was made possible in part by the court's understanding of personhood. You admitted you don't know when personhood begins, but I want to hear when you believe and the reasons for that belief.

My stance on personhood is from a self-evident perspective and common sense. From a scientific perspective, we know what a human being is, and that it is different from other types of beings. We know that a human being's nature is a personal nature. It deals with what the Unborn is - a human being and the nature of human beings. It also seeks to find out, how from a biological perspective how such a thing can be known and if there is a better or more reasonable explanation. I think I conveyed that.

YOU: "PGA, there's a reason I'm focusing on biological differences. Once we get into ontology and natures, we're dealing in non-empirical spheres. Biological distinction is typified by things like "characteristics, traits, qualities, [and] abilities", distinct natures are far more nebulous. What defines human nature? How can we determine that a zygote has human nature? If your response is that at some point, that zygote will become a full grown human, what about all those zygotes that don't make it that far? How can we determine that for them? You talk about a human male and female mating (which, again, is biological), though there are a multitude of circumstances where zygotes are made via other methods, e.g. in vitro fertilization. They are still persons despite the absence of mating. Clearly, mating is not a prerequisite for personhood."

You dichotomized biological (physical) and ontological (non-empirical) as if the first is the only way in which something can be known and verified.

YOU: "...distinct natures are far more nebulous. What defines human nature? How can we determine that a zygote has human nature?"

Human nature, or being human, is defined by the type of being something is. It is not hard to understand. A human zygote derives its existence from other human beings, from the fertilization of human sperm and human egg; the process known as conception, the beginning of a new, individual, separate, living organism. You can't get a human being by trying to fertilize gorilla sperm with a human egg or visa versa.

YOU: " If your response is that at some point, that zygote will become a full-grown human, what about all those zygotes that don't make it that far? How can we determine that for them?"

It can only be what its biological nature deems it to be. A human does not change into another being so no matter what stage of growth the Unborn dies, if its biological parents are human, it will be human. It can't be anything other than human. For zygotes that don't make it further, that does not change what they are because they derive their nature from the type of beings that produce them and, ultimately, from God. I hope you are not separating the different stages of growth, as did Haeckel’s embryos.

YOU: "They are still persons despite the absence of mating. Clearly, mating is not a prerequisite for personhood."

Yes, you identify them as persons correctly. Human male sperm and human female egg are the prerequisites for producing a human being. Yes, that can be done artificially now. That was not the case centuries ago nd it is not natural but artificial.

YOU: "Beyond that, you're just slipping into other subjects, e.g. what imparts value, which is a secondary question."

It is the most important issue or subject in the debate, regarding abortion and the legalization of abortion, to know what you are killing.

Do you believe you are killing a human being? Please answer that. You seem to skip by that time and again.

That is the question because if you believe that (yes, it is a human being that is killed), then the moral question is, what gives you the right to kill another innocent human being? Please answer that.

You seem to have downshifted into a religious stance on the issue, and while I'm not going to challenge you on that basis, that is your perspective and rather distinct from mine. My impression was that you wanted to understand what leads me to my views on abortion, and you initially challenged me (several times in that first set of posts) on the basis that you believe that there is a scientific basis for the start of personhood. You're right, my perspective on personhood is largely driven by what we can empirically prove. It's fine if you think other issues should be paramount, but that's going beyond the issues we've been discussing and I'd like to get past this first. So, forgive me if I'm coming off as stubborn on this, but again, it was your perspective (unless I misread it) that there is a scientifically proven point at which personhood begins. If I'm wrong on that, if we're on the same page that there is no empirical means by which we can determine when personhood begins, then we can count the issue as agreed and move on with that as a baseline. If we can't, then I'd like to wrap that up before we move onto other issues.

The biblical God is described as a personal being, which means, in part, belonging to a particular being rather than anyone else and having certain qualities and characteristics. As a person, He is able to reason and love as well as have the ability to express Himself, be known and know, create and do things that relate to His distinct being, as well as judge and have compassion and mercy; the Almighty, unlimited in power and majesty. Those are just a few of His personal attributes. By nature, He is also different from us in His abilities, presence, knowledge, power, and eternal being. So if I demonstrate my personality, my presence would also be particular to me, different in distinction from anyone else yet operating from within the confines of what I am as a human being, having a human nature. I too, like God, can reason, love, create, and express myself as well as know others and be known because I bear the image and likeness of God to a small degree, a very limited degree. I understand I also share in some of His attributes because He has revealed as much by His written word to me. There are some things, expressions, mannerisms, and habits I do that are peculiar and unique to me alone that other people see and understand about me. My personality can be very stubborn, but it expresses itself by trying to be kind and look out for the self-interests of others above myself much of the time. I seek after truth and want to understand why I am and who made me. That drives me along, along with a desire to be loved and love others, especially a special someone to share life with.

Psalm 139:13-14 (NASB)
13 For You created my innermost parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will give thanks to You, because [a]I am awesomely and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.

Since we are created with minds and bodies, or souls and bodies, or spirits, souls and bodies, I believe there are at least two aspects to knowing, physical verification and non-physical abstractness or the non-physical, of which logic plays its part in understanding or proving anything.

Many things are not empirical by nature, yet a natural worldview requires a material or empirical nature of all things. Empiricism cannot meet its own standard. Show me the empirical without using logic and show me that the laws of logic exist empirically. By the laws, I mean the Law of Excluded Middles, the Law of Identity, and the Law of Contradiction. I do not believe you can show me personality empirically, just aspects of it exhibited in traits, just like I don't believe you can show me these laws of logic or beginnings or intentionality and uniformity in something that is not mindful.

YOU: "You're saying that unique DNA and the somewhat nebulous aspect of embodying the entirety of a human are both necessary and sufficient for one to be considered a person? When I refer to the latter (and I'll try to break this down as you have, forgive me for any errors), you're arguing that the stage of development must have:

1) The capacity to divide and differentiate into numerous tissue types in and of itself,"

I'm saying it does.

YOU: "2) The capability to do so in the absence of any intervention beyond affording it nutrition and an appropriate environment,"

Other than by something you seem not to recognize, the hand of God in determining what it is and its functions, rather than blind indifference chance factors causing its consistency and uniformity.

YOU: "3) Must do so in the absence of any artificial means."

By any intelligent attempts or means to alter its nature since God deemed it what it is.

YOU: "Please, modify this as you see fit, but I'd like a clear statement about what separates a person, in your estimation, from what is simply considered biologically human. I did note that you included "God 'breathing' into them the breath of life", though as that is not an empirical claim, I'm leaving it out of this. I'm seeking a purely scientific reason why the unborn at all stages of development must be considered a person, so adding in religious statements like this detracts from the issue."

Thanks! I think the best I can do is give you examples.

Yes, I was making a point by including God. You seek a purely scientific reason because that seems to be where you place your ultimate source of authority. You are looking to the natural world, the physical, and the material for your explanation of all things, an empirical verification. How does that work with morality? And how does that work with beginnings? You don't know when personhood begins. Science can't tell you. So how do you make sense of it? You appeal to what you THINK can be known and verified while at the same time making judgements about something you don't know and can't verify, at least not empirically. We are trying to determine in such instances if your reasoning is better or worse off than mine or the Pro-life position since you are defending the other side.

PGA, there's a reason I'm focusing on biological differences. Once we get into ontology and natures, we're dealing in non-empirical spheres. Biological distinction is typified by things like "characteristics, traits, qualities, [and] abilities", distinct natures are far more nebulous. What defines human nature? How can we determine that a zygote has human nature? If your response is that at some point, that zygote will become a full grown human, what about all those zygotes that don't make it that far? How can we determine that for them? You talk about a human male and female mating (which, again, is biological), though there are a multitude of circumstances where zygotes are made via other methods, e.g. in vitro fertilization. They are still persons despite the absence of mating. Clearly, mating is not a prerequisite for personhood.

Beyond that, you're just slipping into other subjects, e.g. what imparts value, which is a secondary question.

YOU: "Saying it’s by nature punts the question unless you’re no longer arguing that personhood is a empirically established. Nature isn’t something that can be measured in a lab. It’s not a trait we can use to differentiate one organism from another. If it’s not based on traits in your estimation, then we agree to that extent. If it is based on traits, then reducing it to “nature” is too non-specific."

Do you not recognize that ontologically, a human being has a specific type of nature different from a frog, cat, or bird? It is not only biologically distinct from those, but it has characteristics, traits, qualities, abilities, and some limits that differ from a frog, cat, or bird. Human nature is the essence of what it means to be a human being. Also, you maintain the same identity throughout your life. You still are you, and still human, even though you have experienced many physical changes and circumstances in life change. You came into being, not someone else, and you don't change from being you, a distinct individual human and person, throughout your life. You have your own identity, your own personality. You are or should be valuable in and of yourself, not because you acquire traits or are better functioning than someone else. To be otherwise is a licence to discriminate and dehumanize those who are "not as good" or consequentially marginalize you into that camp.

When a biological human male and female mate, is there any other type of being other than a human being that can be produced??? By nature, the answer is obvious. Where do you see otherwise? The offspring of human beings take on the nature of a human being, which includes personhood. The human being does not take on another identity. It is what it is.

So, let's just clarify this before we move onto your other questions, because I feel this is rather fundamental to my view and we need to have a clear distinction here before we can get down to the other issues you've presented:

You're saying that unique DNA and the somewhat nebulous aspect of embodying the entirety of a human are both necessary and sufficient for one to be considered a person? When I refer to the latter (and I'll try to break this down as you have, forgive me for any errors), you're arguing that the stage of development must have:

1) The capacity to divide and differentiate into numerous tissue types in and of itself,
2) The capability to do so in the absence of any intervention beyond affording it nutrition and an appropriate environment,
3) Must do so in the absence of any artificial means.

Please, modify this as you see fit, but I'd like a clear statement about what separates a person, in your estimation, from what is simply considered biologically human. I did note that you included "God 'breathing' into them the breath of life", though as that is not an empirical claim, I'm leaving it out of this. I'm seeking a purely scientific reason why the unborn at all stages of development must be considered a person, so adding in religious statements like this detracts from the issue.

YOU: "You’re not talking about a single cell or “an entity that isn’t “more than one type of cell”, but you would designate a zygote as a person. I don’t understand that distinction. I also don’t understand why having more than one cell is what makes a human being. Isn’t that just a stage of development? Why isn’t that similarly arbitrary?"

The zygote is the first stage, or earliest stage, of the growth of a new individual, living being. It has the information (Its DNA) to direct the new individual organism from its most basic developmental stage to the next stage of growth and beyond. I'm saying a skin cell is a specific type of cell and not the whole but a part of the organism. A skin cell is not a whole living individual but just a part of it. A zygote, as a whole, is the first stage or beginning of a human being's growth and development.

YOU: "To that end, as well, if I take an arm off of a person, I’m not separating one person from another despite the fact that both have differentiated human cells. Maybe this was meant to be a response to that:

“entity that is directing the growth and functioning from within itself of its ENTIRE LIVING BEING”

Again, an arm is not the whole but a part of an individual. An arm is not a person. It does not determine the person. The person still is who he/she is, regardless of whether he/she is missing or has lost an arm. He/she still knows who they are. Although the "zygote" does not yet know who it is (self-aware), it has within the structure of its being the ABILITY to develop into what IT IS, a personal being. Can you say human beings are NOT personal beings? What you need to do is demonstrate that the Unborn does not naturally have such ability of personhood or grant that you don't know and give it the benefit of your doubt.

YOU: "But I’m unclear because a developing embryo doesn’t direct its own growth, at least not in its entirety. If I were to grow an organ in the lab, I would not be growing a new human, despite the fact that the stem cells I’m using to grow it are able to partially direct their own growth. I’m imposing external growth factors on it to make it grow a specific way. The same is true with an embryo."

Are you saying that its DNA does not direct its growth, but some external factor does? Of course, I realize it needs nourishment from outside itself, just like every other human being or being, because that is within the nature of the design. DNA determines its humanness because it descends from a male and female human and carries human traits, but within itself, the nourishment is directed and utilized in a NATURAL course of events. I'm not speaking of something artificial or forced upon it in which an intelligent being alters that natural course as they play God. As you say, "I AM IMPOSING EXTERNAL GROWTH FACTOR ON IT." You, in such a case, would be interfering with its natural progression to cause a specific pattern or reaction.

YOU: "So, I ask again: what traits make a person distinct from just being human? You acknowledge that the two are distinct by saying that a skin cell is not a person, but I have yet to see something that differentiates all persons from non-person human cells and tissues."

Their personal, distinct DNA makes them different from other human beings, plus God "breathing" into them the breath of life.

Since you are a biologist, what is the difference between a rock and a living being if everything comes from a material start or beginning, how does that process take place and play out? And God is not taught in science as being responsible in any way for beginnings? I'm asking how something impersonal (a rock or material object) takes on personhood strictly through a biological function (evolving); something that is not alive and material in nature somehow eventually acquires life and consciousness, the latter differences that are hard to verify empirically as to how and when they happened. You seem to look for all your answers strictly from a scientific perspective or at least explain them strictly from such a perspective. That suggests to me what your ultimate authority seems to be, empiricism and scientism because neither is capable of supplying you with the truth of what actually happened in such fields. It is speculation. You are speculating. You speculate about personhood (as you admit), and if science is your ultimate authority, you speculate about beginnings. That is what you do with the Unborn, you speculate about when they become human, and you speculate about when they become persons, and you speculate on what is right and what is wrong because it is relative and subjective unless you can point to a source that is otherwise. I'm still waiting for that one.

Saying it’s by nature punts the question unless you’re no longer arguing that personhood is a empirically established. Nature isn’t something that can be measured in a lab. It’s not a trait we can use to differentiate one organism from another. If it’s not based on traits in your estimation, then we agree to that extent. If it is based on traits, then reducing it to “nature” is too non-specific.

You’re not talking about a single cell or “an entity that isn’t “more than one type of cell”, but you would designate a zygote as a person. I don’t understand that distinction. I also don’t understand why having more than one cell is what makes a human being. Isn’t that just a stage of development? Why isn’t that similarly arbitrary?

To that end, as well, if I take an arm off of a person, I’m not separating one person from another despite the fact that both have differentiated human cells. Maybe this was meant to be a response to that:

“entity that is directing the growth and functioning from within itself of its ENTIRE LIVING BEING”

But I’m unclear because a developing embryo doesn’t direct its own growth, at least not in its entirety. If I were to grow an organ in the lab, I would not be growing a new human, despite the fact that the stem cells I’m using to grow it are able to partially direct their own growth. I’m imposing external growth factors on it to make it grow a specific way. The same is true with an embryo.

So, I ask again: what traits make a person distinct from just being human? You acknowledge that the two are distinct by saying that a skin cell is not a person, but I have yet to see something that differentiates all persons from non-person human cells and tissues.

Human beings are personal beings by nature.

So its personality is a part of its nature.

YOU: "What you’re talking about is personhood, specifically its beginnings. You would likely not argue that any cell that has human DNA is, itself, a person. A skin cell is not a person. If I injected a pig with human DNA, it does not become a person. And, presumably, you would argue that gametes aren’t persons. These would all be designated as human in some way, shape or form, yet they are not persons. Hence, the issue is the distinction: when does something that is human under biological definitions become a person? I haven’t heard a satisfying answer to this question yet, so I invite you to address it instead of just punting back to me with more questions."

You are confusing two different things. Yes, a skin cell is not a person. I'm not talking about an individual cell, whether that be a skin cell or not, but about a complete or whole living organism or entity that is directing the growth and functioning from within itself of its ENTIRE LIVING BEING that is more than one type of cell or another because of what it is. You are separating the two distinctions and trying to make the PARTS the WHOLE.

If the distinct LIVING whole organism has a human nature, what does that entail? It entails the traits that make up a human being, one of which is personhood comes from within its own being, not outside.

It is not a different kind of being but its own human being, growing and developing into what it is. That is part of its natural human development. You seem to think that it acquires human traits that are not from its own human nature but from somewhere else that it picks up at some point. Of so, prove that. You don't seem to know where these traits come from because you seem to think they CAN NOT be part of the individual unborn's distinct human nature.

We are talking about two different things. Scientists can determine whether an organism, tissue or cell is human. We do that by taking a set of traits (DNA most often, since it covers all of them), and noting genes that are indicative of what is human. We can also track the development of specific traits. That’s how science is used to make these determinations.

What you’re talking about is personhood, specifically its beginnings. You would likely not argue that any cell that has human DNA is, itself, a person. A skin cell is not a person. If I injected a pig with human DNA, it does not become a person. And, presumably, you would argue that gametes aren’t persons. These would all be designated as human in some way, shape or form, yet they are not persons. Hence, the issue is the distinction: when does something that is human under biological definitions become a person? I haven’t heard a satisfying answer to this question yet, so I invite you to address it instead of just punting back to me with more questions.

ME: "Can he say that the Unborn is not a PERSON? (He has admitted he can't)."

YOU: "In general, I think a lot of what you've posted here comes down to "personhood matters." I agree that it does, but I disagree that we can accurately designate when personhood begins. To do so empirically requires assigning a specific trait or set of traits as the definitive beginning of personhood. Absent that, it becomes a philosophical question, and different philosophies can and will disagree for a variety of reasons. Frankly, much of my opinion on the beginnings of personhood and how much it should factor into the issue of abortion stems from this: greater uncertainty should render this portion of the issue a minor one when considering policy. That's not a dismissal of personhood as an issue, that just recognizes that our policy shouldn't be dictated by an arbitrary answer to a question we have no means to adequately answer."

Personal matters? Does that mean you can't know?

Again, because you don't know, why do you think no one else can know? That is your assumption, perhaps. Do you believe some things are innately known or self-evident? Do you discount God's revealing or putting the difference between right and wrong within the human consciousness? Is there such a thing as a self-evident truth? All I see here is an appeal to science as your ultimate authority on the matter. Your answer seems to be saying because science cannot determine a specific "trait," then that makes it official, it cannot be known. Yes, it is a philosophical issue, but also a moral one. How do scientists decide what is and is not moral? It is not me who believes it is uncertain what the human Unborn is; it is you. It boils down to your ultimate authority. Therefore how can you say what SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be if your authority is not ultimate or absolute? Yet you are. So, once again, your subjective position on abortion comes up wanting and is inconsistent.

It is inconsistent, isn't it? You don't know it is a person, yet you advocate for a Pro-choice position and support the taking of its life on the woman's decision without knowing what is being killed. You appear not to recognize that all human beings are personal beings and intrinsically valuable and deserve life because of the position you advocate for and that you can't justify it (you don't know and admit it). Are you also saying you don't know the approximate timeline for when human life begins??? Does it take fifteen days or more to determine this, and who says and why? If the Unborn has the genetic makeup of a human being, can it be another kind of being? When it comes into being (starts to live), does it not have a human nature, which would include personhood? Is that not reasonable??? So, even if you want to concede no one can know and nothing else can be determined about its personhood, your position is less reasonable than PRO's because you are not giving the benefit of the doubt to the Unborn. "Kill it; we don't know what it is!" Do we know a one-day-old-born human is a person? Does it have the traits of personhood? You don't seem to know what are these specific traits or at least when they are ASSIGNED. "We don't know; kill it!"

YOU: "...but I disagree that we can accurately designate when personhood begins. To do so empirically requires assigning a specific trait or set of traits as the definitive beginning of personhood."

Thanks for engaging. Hopefully, others will pipe up too.

ME: "Can Con say that the Unborn is NOT a human being? (I do not believe he can reasonably do this, nor has he)."

YOU: "I didn't say that, and I'm not saying that now. I was pretty blatant about my position."

No, I did not charge you with saying the Unborn is not a human being. I said, "nor has he," but I wanted you to clarify your thoughts. That is why the following sentence is so puzzling.

YOU: "Regarding what science can do, if you're talking about empirically showing that a given form of life is a human being, that depends on the criteria."

What kind of scientific criterion are you speaking about, and do you actually believe them? Are you telling me that some scientists CAN'T tell whether the product of a human male and female is human, that science has no clue, it is up in the air, and it can just manipulate the data to say whatever it wants to state depending on who is saying it? It is a pretty pitiful authority if the truth changes or cannot be determined with this matter. A given life form resulting from two biological human beings can be something other than human??? The scientists who think this way have lost their common sense and collective minds.

YOU: "I'll note that Bones himself said that selecting specific criteria for what a human being is problematic, mainly because it's arbitrary. So, since we cannot answer that scientifically because we cannot define what specific physical aspects make a human being, I think that relegates the question of whether the unborn is a person to philosophy."

If it has male and female parents, genes, it shares 23 chromosomes from each, and they can't say it is a human being. This is so absurd, only in scientism.

And, IMO, the problem with such a worldview that lifts science above all else as its ultimate authority (and to some, only empirical data that science cannot even conform to) is that it is subject to subjective human beings who are often wrong because of their lack of understanding.

You admitted that you don't know where personhood begins. Are you saying you don't know when its human nature begins, either? When a person does not know such things, should they not give the benefit of the doubt in favour of the Unborn, as Pro pointed out? IMO, there should be DIGNITY given to every innocent human being, that includes the Unborn, not just the select or the elect. The problem so often is the Pro-choice side neglects to do so because it fails to distinguish or they mask the difference between right and wrong, human and non-human, and person and non-person. Because of the Pro-life ultimate authority (usually science or personal subjective or group choice without consideration for God or an ultimate reference point), it can't make sense of morality or distinguish what is and is not human or a person, and yet decides if it lives or dies. When a person does not know the TRUTH of the situation and does not believe anyone can, then advocates for the woman killing the Unborn and dictates what should and should not be and how we should understand the situation, there is a serious deficiency here and many assumptions.

In general, I think a lot of what you've posted here comes down to "personhood matters." I agree that it does, but I disagree that we can accurately designate when personhood begins. To do so empirically requires assigning a specific trait or set of traits as the definitive beginning of personhood. Absent that, it becomes a philosophical question, and different philosophies can and will disagree for a variety of reasons. Frankly, much of my opinion on the beginnings of personhood and how much it should factor into the issue of abortion stems from this: greater uncertainty should render this portion of the issue a minor one when considering policy. That's not a dismissal of personhood as an issue, that just recognizes that our policy shouldn't be dictated by an arbitrary answer to a question we have no means to adequately answer.

Alright, I can at least address your questions.

Can Con say that the Unborn is NOT a human being? (I do not believe he can reasonably do this, nor has he. What is the consensus from Science?).

I didn't say that, and I'm not saying that now. I was pretty blatant about my position. Regarding what science can do, if you're talking about empirically showing that a given form of life is a human being, that depends on the criteria. I'll note that Bones himself said that selecting specific criteria for what is a human being is problematic, mainly because it's arbitrary. So, since we cannot answer that scientifically because we cannot define what specific physical aspects make a human being, I think that relegates the question of whether the unborn is a person to philosophy.

Can he say that the Unborn is not a PERSON? (He has admitted he can't).

That's repetitious with the above question. I treat "human being" and "person" identically.

Can Con say the Unborn is only a blob of tissue? (Not according to science).

I didn't, and I don't.

Can Con say it is okay to kill human beings without just cause? (Not unless he believes human beings are not intrinsically valuable).

I didn't, and I don't.

Does Con believe innocent human beings such as the Unborn are worthless? (If he does, and he appears to, he also places little to zero worth on his own life or that of his family. Is he willing to do that? Can anybody just take those lives without reprecussion? Where is the justice there? There is none. Yet he permits it in the case of the Unborn. Where is the justice there?).

I didn't, and I don't. At no point in this debate did I make any statement to that effect.

Is the Unborn an innocent human being? (What has it done wrong? Nothing. Did it choose its circumstances. No, generally speaking, the woman and man consented to sexual intercourse knowing that it could lead to pregnancy. Does she have a responsibility in engaging in sex? She now thinks not).

I have argued and will continue to argue that determining that the unborn is a human being is a philosophical question. As such, I push back on the notion that the unborn is empirically defined as a human being.

Is the woman consenting to kill another innocent human being? (Yes, she is if she agrees to end the life in her womb without just cause).

See above.

I think Bones and I share much of the same views; at least, he advocated for them in the debate. I don't think your answers were adequate, so yes, I want to engage in a learning and justification discussion/session for both sides. I think you had many valid points, but I believe you also skipped over some vital issues that Bones could have expanded upon more.

Whiteflame: "I appreciate the extensive thoughts on the topic, but I'm a bit lost on what you're looking to get from all this."

First, I wanted to critique your position as the weaker of the two.

Second, I want to hear why you think abortion is okay regarding the comments I have brought up. You know my bias, and I know yours. I know we have covered this extensively in private conversations, and I did not agree with your position then on this position, nor do I now. I think it would make an interesting discussion that others can engage in. It is a subject that I think we can all learn from by discussing it because it is usually ignored in abortion debates and by abortion advocates. These are crucial issues, and abortion was a hot topic during your elections that ignited much of the Gen Z and academic vote, from people who seem blind to these issues.

The heart of any debate on abortion, I believe, focuses on what the Unborn is. It is a moral issue that Con brings up with his views on structural violence against the woman and his views on personhood as well as his view that abortion SHOULD be legal.

CON: "This framework precludes all other moral considerations because it necessarily includes all affected parties in any moral calculus, drawing attention to those who would otherwise be excluded as subjectively unimportant, “becom[ing] either invisible, or demeaned… so that we do not have to acknowledge the injustice they suffer. To reduce [the] nefarious effects [of moral exclusion], we must be vigilant in noticing and listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders."

Wow! "All effected parties?" Does that include the Unborn? No, his supports its death. It has become INVISIBLE to his way of thinking, and he demeans it and ignores the injustice it suffers if he does not recognize the following as true:

Can Con say that the Unborn is NOT a human being? (I do not believe he can reasonably do this, nor has he. What is the consensus from Science?).
Can he say that the Unborn is not a PERSON? (He has admitted he can't).
Can Con say the Unborn is only a blob of tissue? (Not according to science).
Can Con say it is okay to kill human beings without just cause? (Not unless he believes human beings are not intrinsically valuable).
Does Con believe innocent human beings such as the Unborn are worthless? (If he does, and he appears to, he also places little to zero worth on his own life or that of his family. Is he willing to do that? Can anybody just take those lives without reprecussion? Where is the justice there? There is none. Yet he permits it in the case of the Unborn. Where is the justice there?).
Is the Unborn an innocent human being? (What has it done wrong? Nothing. Did it choose its circumstances. No, generally speaking, the woman and man consented to sexual intercourse knowing that it could lead to pregnancy. Does she have a responsibility in engaging in sex? She now thinks not).
Is the woman consenting to kill another innocent human being? (Yes, she is if she agrees to end the life in her womb without just cause).

These are all questions that Con should be held accountable for, and I welcome his response in supporting his position.

I appreciate the extensive thoughts on the topic, but I'm a bit lost on what you're looking to get from all this.

We've discussed this issue privately at great length, and I'm willing to extend that here, but you seem to be bouncing between presenting your own arguments for why certain points require more attention from me and talking about issues that were directly covered in the debate. If you want to talk about this debate as we wrote it, we can do that. If you want to talk about your perspective on the topic and personhood, specifically, we can do that. I'd rather ensure that I'm focused on one than try to cover both simultaneously.

CON: "One, Pro claims that the most common reasons for obtaining an abortion are unjustified (his P3). Pro doesn’t explain why either of these reasons [is] unjustified and provides virtually no distinction between justified and unjustified reasons."

I think Pro does explain why abortion is unjustified, and that is that the Unborn is a human being and most likely a person that Con cannot demonstrate otherwise.