I am arguing scientific principles. My logical argument isYou keep bringing up science, and scientific terminology is not subjective. A fetus is a potential member of a species, not a member until successfully born.
Why do people like you keep arguing scientific principles while clearly not comprehending them?
P1 It is wrong to kill homo sapiens that have done nothing wrong.
P2 Abortion kills homo sapiens that have done nothing wrong.
C Abortion is wrong.
You have still not told me what you think about my first premise. It does't say It is wrong to kill a member of the species homo sapiens or person or human or unborn child or anything like that. All those things are subjective opinions that people personally have. There is no objective definition of person. Someone in a persistent vegetative state is called a vegetable rather than a person. Some people say homo sapiens in a persistent vegetative states are still people some don't. So is whether or not a fetus is a person. I think all homo sapiens are people but I don't expect everyone to agree with me. So I just use objective scientific criteria to base my arguments on. You say a fetus is not a "member" of the species Homo sapiens that is an example of you basing your argument on arbitrary ideas on what makes someone human. I would like you to acknowledge that you are not the authority (neither am I) on what makes someone a "member" of the species Homo Sapiens, a person, a child, a baby or any off that. You don't get to make that determination for other people. I don't get to make it for you either. So once again I will ask. Do you think it is ok to kill Homo Sapiens that have done nothing wrong? I already know your answer and so do you. Just admit it and we can move on and stop with all this subjective terminology. The more you avoid answering a clear straight up question just makes me think that you are embarrassed about your position.