60% A, 40% C
Well, for A, provide your rebuttal to my arguments that it is. For C, please don't do that. We're trying to have a debate about abortion, not religion.
Appeals to religion are invalid, except for defining your own PERSONAL(READ: not mine or anyone else's) moral code. Nice try, though.
Actually no, but that's not what the debate is about or what I'm doing, so never mind.
...
the government is as secular as it is a democracy. I think there's a reference to religion on both our nation's pledge and our currency.
...Neither of which refers to a specific religion, or, more importantly, was created by the founders. There is separation of church and state, meaning there is no forced state religion and no formal ties between the government and any state church. On the other hand, allowing churches to exist and to espouse their views in public, listening to their petitions, and having religious adherents in the government is part of being a democracy.
Explain how -science- exclaims that a faetus is exactly the same as a person. To me, a faetus is as much a human as, I don't know, a pine cone is an actual pine tree. I'll acknowledge the last point about the religious right, though. I'm just bitter.
Basic science shows that the fetus is a living homo sapiens, with its own DNA distinct from its mother's. Logic and philosophy show, IMO, that none of the differences between a fetus and an adult human make it less of a person and justify killing it (my main argument is over
here, for reference.
A pine cone would be a better analogy for a sperm or an egg on its own. Once there's a fertilized zygote, it's more like a sapling -- just like a tree, except a lot smaller. But really, analogies to plants are inadequate, since we don't think killing trees is that bad anyway. (Also, it leaves out the fact that 99% of the people cutting down their trees planted the trees themselves)
Poll
