Fun with debating

So a while ago, I joined Facebook, mostly out of curiosity: What's this all about? Initially it seemed it wasn't really about much of anything, so I pretty much left it alone. The other day, however, I received a group invitation—it seems someone started a “UBC Atheists” group and searched for UBC students of that persuasion. I'm not sure if this will lead to anything at all, either; right now the group is in its infancy, so it's too early to tell. Anyway, someone posted something on the discussion board that I took exception to.

Quoth he:

I think one of the main arguments in favour of having a religion is the need to have a moral code drawn out for you as a guide. Generall I don't agree with this argument, but there's just one issue that nags at me. I'm very strongly pro-life, and it seems like those that wisely reject religion go and reject a babies rights at the same time. I know the pro-choice argument is that a fetus/embryo/zygote somehow isn't a human and therefore not entitled to human rights. And the term prochoice has become synonmous with feminism and supposedly "progressive" thinking. But why is everyone getting all excited about a woman's right to her body and forgetting about the issue of whether or not the baby is a human? Have we become lost without religion? As an aside, I'd like to ask all you pro-choicers out there a question: if the baby isn't a human, at what point do you decide it is a human? The day it's born? Maybe four months after conception? If you're a little unsure about what that date should be can you be absolutely certain that it's just abortion and not murder?

This was shortly followed up with another post:

I just thought of one more question to think about. I think that the majority of people think it's the woman's right to decide what is right or wrong for her. But, again, the question of whether or not to have an abortion, is really a question of whether or not abortion is murder. I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that society should do everything it can to prevent the killing of a new born child. So if the answer for you is that yes, abortion is murder, and an unborn child is just as human as newborn, isn't it your responsibilty as a member of society to make sure that people think hard about this issue and hopefully create a law to prevent abortion from happening any more?

Quoth I:

I think that one of the main arguments against religion is that you're basing moral code on something inhuman, resulting in a non-humanist moral code, where, for example, it is more important to worship some god than to be nice to people, and it's perfectly OK -- in fact, a GOOD thing -- to murder people in the name of God if you believe you have been so commanded. (See the Christians' Old Testament for mass murders, executions, the slaughter of women and children, etc. in the name of God.) I'm not suggesting that all religious people are immoral or amoral, but I sometimes wonder whether they are moral due to or in spite of their religion. The frequent claim that without religion there is no motivation to be good assumes that our natural tendency, tempered only by the hope of posthumous reward or eternal punishment, is to be mean to other people. I don't know about you, but I'd like to think I'm not like that! (As for the people who make the claims, well, I guess they answered the question for THEIR specific cases.) I think that any reasonable code of ethics or morality should be founded on respect for the human being, and the sanctity, if you will, of live and consciousness.

This is the part of what I said that I found interesting to write:

Now to address the other issue, that is, your "pro-life" stance: The question that you pose to "pro-choicers" actually cuts both ways. I concede that it's difficult to answer -- so for example I am fully in favour of allowing early abortions, dubious about late abortions, and freely admit that I presently lack the knowledge to properly define the terms "early" and "late". But what about you? Life doesn't begin with conception in any meaningful sense. Before conception there are ova and sperm, and when they unite, they merely form a different kind of life. Surely you will not argue that sperm and ova are previously dead matter! But if it is immoral to kill the sperm and ova the instant they unite, then why is it not immoral to kill them beforehand? Or are you also opposed to spermicides, various contraceptives, male masturbation, and the failure to have sex (as sperm will surely die in the scrotum, and the ova will perish in the gory murder of menstruation, unless conception occurs)? So my answer is: There's no cut-and-dry answer. Yes, we have to make an arbitrary decision on when it's OK, or we have to make two divisions, as I prefer to do: A time when abortion is definitely OK; a time when it's definitely or almost definitely not OK; and a time that we admit to be a grey area lest we be hypocrites, because if we make any one clean division, whether before or after some trimester, even before or after conception, then why is it OK at some point, and not a day -- an hour -- an instant later? As a closing thought, I think that the meaningful answer would be based on consciousness and self-awareness: I see no terrible evil in killing an organism that is not self-aware. I lack, however, the knowledge of embryology to make even the vaguest guess about when a fetus develops self-awareness -- except that I assure you it won't happen before it has a brain, and so definitely not in the very earliest stages of development.

He has yet to reply to this.