~Lady~:

Is abortion murder?

Yes it is.

Why?

Because it is life, not just life, but human life. Those who say it is not human life are ignorant of biology and the developments of the child in the womb.

What is life?

"life" is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, functional activity and the continual change preceding death.

the fetus (latin for 'young one') grows, it develops, it is a living mechanism, it is life.

So what life is it?

Is it a human life, a goat life, a plant life?

well let's see, a human begets a human, a goat begets a goat, a parrticular pant's seed begets the particular plant.

Since the fetus is begotten of the human, it is human life. How many of you are comfortable with ending human life?

Women are well into their 4th week before they find out they're pregnant, sometimes they don't even know. My aunt is currently pregnant and she didn't know until the 8th week.

During the 5th week, the brain, spinal cord, and heart are forming. Seeing that women are just finding out they're pregnant when they get an abortion, they are stopping a heart and brain, how many of you are comfortable with that?

By week 6 the heart is pumping blood.

by week 8, u have fingers

by week 11 you have the focal places.

This is the first trimester. If by the first trimester, the baby is pretty much formed or everything is set in place to distingusigh the fingers, the toes, the head, the brain and all, what do u expect to find in the second trimester.

Not just that, but the fetus has its own DNA, it's own body. The woman isn't doing anything to her body, she is destroying the body of another person.
It is a human being, so taking its life is murder.

I mentioned my aunt is pregnant she is now 13 and a half weeks. She had a miscarriage scare (pls pray for her), so to make sure the baby is ok they did an ultrasound. I was there when this happened.

I saw a human body, with fingers, toes, a head. I also saw the brain, and most importantly, I saw the heart beating. He was actually sucking his thumb and had the other had in a waving motion, so I took it he was saying hello to me. He was also very restless, and was moving very much, doing flips and such, it was amazing.

Now some people say it's not viable, well that is called development.
We do not stop developing even after we're outside of the womb, and infants cannot survive by themselves outside of the womb.
Give birth to a child and leave it and see what happens. He or she will die. Why? Because they are not developed to the point of surviving on their own and are still dependent on the mother just as when they are in the womb.

Stating that bcus the fetus isn't viable at a certain time it can be aborted is like saying that bcus infants cannot care for themselves at birth until they develop to the stage of being able to take care of themselves which is what? age 7 maybe? or age 18?, that they can be killed by their mothers bcus she feels she cannot care for the baby or that it is too dependent on her.


point is, we are humans and we are still developing and we all go through different stages of life, just bcus we haven't gotten to one stage does not mean that we are less important at the current stage.

a 12 year old girl who just saw her first menses is not more important than a 2 year old who is no where close to seeing her menses, it is called development.

The difference between killing the fetus in the womb and killing a new born baby, a 2 year old, a 10 year old, a 15 year old, a 20 year old, a 40 year old, a 65 year old is location.


it can be in the womb, the car, the house, the school, and in the case of Andrea Yates the bath tub. either way it is called killing, it is called murder.

To the person who said that "ofcourse it isn't murder, if it was murder it wouldn't be legal". Your logic is highly flawed, here's how. Just because something is legal does not make it the right thing, does not make it humane, does not make it correct.

Case in point? Slavery. It was legal, but because it was legal does it make it right? It was still an afffront to human dignity, and the rights of the human to be counted as human.

To those who say well I won't do it, but who am I to judge another?

That logic is flawed.

Once again, slavery. Whites felt it was their right to own slaves, they felt there was nothing wrong with it.
by your thinking slavery should be legal and each person can make their own personal choice to own slaves or not to own slaves.

Why don't we apply that to logic to murder, stealing, despoil, etc?

I personally would not kill, despoil, or steal, but if someone else wishes to do so, who am i to judge them?

Does that make sense to you?

All too often ppl confuse judging ppl's souls with judging their actions.

We can correct another when they've done something wrong, we can judge the actions of others, we cannot judge whether or not they're going to hell or heaven.

Saying we can't judge the actions of others means our justice system is wrong and that we shouldn't have the court of law.

We can love the person and hate the sin. Stating that abortion is wrong and murder does not mean you are condemning the person, you are condemning the action, and until we start standing up for what is right, we will no longer be able to tell when someone does something wrong.

And no when it comes to right or wrong, there are no gray areas, it is black and white. Either the ending of innocent life is murder or it is not. It is not a matter of moral relativism.

Lady T, thanks for pointing out the obvious, i have tried to state my own points too to the pro-abortionist, but with this, they should be able to reason out of the box, but wait until you see them counter you. calling a fetus non-living thing strikes my imagination and some even compared fetus (baby) to animals.

nice post from -lady.

~Lady~:

<What of those who are on birth control drugs is that murder? No>

Actually it can be murder bcus a lot of BCs are abortificients, meaning after conception they prevent the egg from implanting, development has already started.
So women thinking 'oh i'm on bc, i'm not pregnant' have actually become pregnant but their BC's have prevented their baby from implanting.

IUDs are the worst.

This is why the problem starts with BCs or artificial contraceptives. People expect these things to work and when they don't, they resort to killing the child.
It is a case of ppl not wanting to take responsibilities for their actions.

Planned Parenthood reported that 54% of the women who had abortions were using contraceptives that is 54% more than half of them were on contraceptives.

The problem is with the lack of self control. People need to start controlling themselves, and we need to stop teaching our kids that they're animals with no self-control. This is what distinguishes us from other mammals, we have self-control. We have a more developed frontal lobe, and can think. We don't hump every Tom, manliness, and Emeka just when we want to, or is it every Ngozi, Yemi, and Amina.

Abegi! Responsibility ko, rapid response squad ni.

Since we eat junk food like pasta, pies and co why don't we all take responsibility and die when we get a coronary rather than opting for a triple bypass surgery.

Or since your infallible pope -prolly wasn't wearing good shoes or just plain careless- slipped and fell in the bathroom floor, why didn't he take responsibility and move around with his disfigured arm rather than going for corrective surgery?

Make una spare us abeg.

Tudór:

Abegi! Responsibility ko, rapid response squad ni.

Since we eat junk food like pasta, pies and co why don't we all take responsibility and die when we get a coronary rather than opting for a triple bypass surgery.

Or since your infallible pope -prolly wasn't wearing good shoes or just plain careless- slipped and fell in the bathroom floor, why didn't he take responsibility and move around with his disfigured arm rather than going for corrective surgery?

Make una spare us abeg.

honeric01:

Lady's argument is a technical knockout to pple who have convived themselves or are convincing themselves that are abortion is smae as removing a cancerous tumour.
I belive in logical reasoning and i thonk this what NLanders should subscribe to than just insulting themselves, that's so immature!

49cents:

Lady's argument is a technical knockout to pple who have convived themselves or are convincing themselves that are abortion is smae as removing a cancerous tumour.
I belive in logical reasoning and i thonk this what NLanders should subscribe to than just insulting themselves, that's so immature!

I couldn't make out anything from what Tudor was saying or were you able to make out anything from it?

It is impossible to counter a sound argument

honeric01:

I couldn't make out anything from what Tudor was saying or were you able to make out anything from it?

49cents:

It is impossible to counter a sound argument

Lady T's argument or Tudor's argument?

honeric01:

I couldn't make out anything from what Tudor was saying or were you able to make out anything from it?

*yawn*
I didn't expect you to. . .that post was directed at lady not you. The instances I used esp the 2nd was directed at her n for a reason too.

Tudór:

*yawn*
I didn't expect you to. . .that post was directed at lady not you. The instances I used esp the 2nd was directed at her n for a reason too.

bull-crap

2 people couldn't make sense outta what you typed!

Lady's i mean;
@ Tudor going for a bypass does not take a human life;
Lady did not quote the bible or state she was catholic (though she is) in her argument so there is no use bring in the pope here!

49cents:

Lady's i mean;
@ Tudor going for a bypass does not take a human life;
Lady did not quote the bible or state she was catholic (though she is) in her argument so there is no use bring in the pope here!

Thank you.

honeric01:

bull-crap

2 people couldn't make sense outta what you typed!

literacy level isn't 100% in nigeria, so lapses like this are expected, innit?

Tudór:

literacy level isn't 100% in nigeria, so lapses like this are expected, innit?

Similar to the one you're exhibiting right?

there is no absolutely no need to slight ourselves here!

49cents:

Lady's i mean;
@ Tudor going for a bypass does not take a human life;
Lady did not quote the bible or state she was catholic (though she is) in her argument so there is no use bring in the pope here!

Is this the 'logical reasoning' you were ranting about not too long ago? I laugh in chinese.

Is it not part of your "logical reasoning" to relate discussions to things, events or figures relevant to the discussants or lady being a catholic I should have related it to 50cent instead of the pope.

Were you blind to see the highlighted portion of lady's post i quoted where she says "its a case of pple not wanting to take responsibility for their actions"?

What EXACTLY is responsibility?

If one were to deduce it from lady's post it therefore means it entails seeing out the natural cause of our actions without any interference.

Thats pure BS.

I slip, fall and crack a bone- i go for corrective surgery.

I smoke and get lung cancer- i go for a transplant.

I have sex and get pregnant - Go for an abortion.

I get raped and get pregnant- I go for an abortion.

And NO, abortion doesn't take away human life. As long as the fetus remains in the human body its no different from other tissues and organs.

honeric01:

Similar to the one you're exhibiting right?

In essence you know you're illiterate. Well done.

Admission is the first step to solution.

@ Lady. I dropped this debate because I noticed a lot of the arguments were made from a religious standpoint, but since this is a religious section objecting on those grounds seemed kinda inappropriate. But I will attempt to show you what I see as some flaws in your arguments, and hopefully we can try to iron them out.

~Lady~:

Is it a human life, a goat life, a plant life?

well let's see, a human begets a human, a goat begets a goat, a parrticular pant's seed begets the particular plant.

Since the fetus is begotten of the human, it is human life. How many of you are comfortable with ending human life?

Is a spermatozoa human life? What about an egg? Is male self-service murder?

Now let us even grant, just so we don't get bogged down, that once the spermatozoa touches the egg we have human life, there is a huge distance, IMO, between your claim that a human being has a right to life, and your claim (not directly made, but implied) that other human beings are morally OBLIGATED to do anything that is necessary to keep him/her alive. Because, IMO, pretending abortions are only about the fetus is both a distortion and an oversimplification of the issue.

Your claim that one (in this case the mother) has a duty to keep another human being alive, no matter what, is, IMO, flawed. It does not consider other morally relevant issues, such as the welfare/health of the mother, the source of the pregnancy, and is not grounded on anything that can stand much critical engagement. By this I mean that you have to show us that being a genetically human fetus is enough to be eligible for moral consideration, and also enough to over-ride the rights of a fully formed human person.

~Lady~:

Women are well into their 4th week before they find out they're pregnant, sometimes they don't even know. My aunt is currently pregnant and she didn't know until the 8th week.

During the 5th week, the brain, spinal cord, and heart are forming. Seeing that women are just finding out they're pregnant when they get an abortion, they are stopping a heart and brain, how many of you are comfortable with that?

By week 6 the heart is pumping blood.

by week 8, u have fingers

by week 11 you have the focal places.

This is the first trimester. If by the first trimester, the baby is pretty much formed or everything  is set in place to distingusigh the fingers, the toes, the head, the brain and all, what do u expect to find in the second trimester.

Not just that, but the fetus has its own DNA, it's own body. The woman isn't doing anything to her body, she is destroying the body of another person.
It is a human being, so taking its life is murder.

I mentioned my aunt is pregnant she is now 13 and a half weeks. She had a miscarriage scare (pls pray for her), so to make sure the baby is ok they did an ultrasound. I was there when this happened.

I saw a human body, with fingers, toes, a head. I also saw the brain, and most importantly, I saw the heart beating. He was actually sucking his thumb and had the other had in a waving motion, so I took it he was saying hello to me. He was also very restless, and was moving very much, doing flips and such, it was amazing.

Now some people say it's not viable, well that is called development.
We do not stop developing even after we're outside of the womb, and infants cannot survive by themselves outside of the womb.
Give birth to a child and leave it and see what happens. He or she will die. Why?  Because they are not developed to the point of surviving on their own and are still dependent on the mother just as when they are in the womb.

That someone's life depends of you does not mean you are OBLIGATED to preserve that life. If you are the only possible blood match for a dying accident victim who needs blood, it may be a really nice thing for you to offer blood, but for someone to call you a murderer for not keeping that person alive, I think, you would agree is kinda ridiculous, even if you caused the accident. So i think while your post may evoke some emotion from the reader, it, IMO, does little to make a case for the right of a fetus to override that of the mother.

~Lady~:

Stating that bcus the fetus isn't viable at a certain time it can be aborted is like saying that bcus infants cannot care for themselves at birth until they develop to the stage of being able to take care of themselves.

No. In my opinion, they is not the same. Infants are sentient beings with relatively well developed brains and nervous systems. They are sentient beings, and sentience is, IMO, a fundamental criterion for moral consideration. A fetus without a functioning brain or nervous system is not eligible for the same moral consideration of a sentient being that can be harmed in ways that matter to him/her. And is IMO, definitely not eligible to the kind of moral consideration that will trump the consideration of a fully developed sentient human.

~Lady~:

The difference between killing the fetus in the womb and killing a new born baby, a 2 year old, a 10 year old, a 15 year old, a 20 year old, a 40 year old, a 65 year old is location.

Your claim is based on being genetically human, and not being morally human. As I pointed out earlier, if what we are talking about is genetic humanity, I should be in jail for over-self-service. Having human genes, or DNA, or whateva is not the same as being a human being. And being human life does not mean all others must do all it takes to preserve your life, regardless of cost to them.

@tudor
I like logical reasoning;

Intimacy is not an accicent like the pope falling and breaking a bone and going for some corrective surgery;
it is willed by persons, who may ar may not know the conseqeuence of thier actions, which may or may or may not lead to the generation of another human being, with the very right to life  though it is still defenceless by self or by the immediate laws of he land.

Really i think all this boils down whether we believe that Human life is sacred; the problem of with the concept of something being sacred is because is somewhat always linked with the Divine, who as free beings we may choose to dispose our intellects to coming to logical conclusion of a higher Existence of Another outside of ourselves.

Let us not negate sound reasoning because of some instances like pregnacy caused by rape; statistically i can bet my life savings that abortions from rape is a millionth to abortion caried out because the willing couple are not ready to have a baby!

religion or not, the facts cannot be altered! abortion=murder!

<Is a spermatozoa human life? What about an egg? Is male self-service murder?>

They are potential for human life, when they do come together, they develop into this person called a baby.

Wile male-service is wrong, it isn't murder, bcus the sperm in and of itself is not developing, and cannot develop until infused with an egg.

<Now let us even grant, just so we don't get bogged down, that once the spermatozoa touches the egg we have human life, there is a huge distance, IMO, between your claim that a human being has a right to life, and your claim (not directly made, but implied) that other human beings are morally OBLIGATED to do anything that is necessary to keep him/her alive. Because, IMO, pretending abortions are only about the fetus is both a distortion and an oversimplification of the issue.>

In direct answer to your statement that there is a difference between having a right to life and another human being being morall OBLIGATED to do anything necessary to keep him/her alive.
My question to you is that if you come across a mother cutting off her child's head will you turn the other way?
If you were standing by and watching a college girl being raped and brutally murdered by a man, you will walk away as if it is not your business?
If you know that someone is about to commit murder, is it not your responsibility to alert the authorities?

I agree it isn't only about the fetus, but my rights to throw a punch ends at your face. You have a right not to be hit by my fist.
As to the dangers of abortion to women, having known many women myself who've had abortions and the psychological problems it has caused for them, some of them even attemtpting to commit suicide, I know abortion does not benefit the woman.

Today there are women who are speaking out about their abortions and the complications in their life that has arisen from it.

Then again there is the father of the child.

I'll give a sory.

A couple becomes pregnant, and they were unmarried. The woman tells him she'll be getting an abortion bcus they were unmarried. So he proposes and starts making arrangements for the wedding. The woman goes ahead with the abortion stating that she doesn't want to be pregnant on her wedding day. The man refuses to marry her for killing his child. There are fathers who grieve in secret bcus if they speak up, society will call them sexist pigs. Not only are the rights of the human inside the womb taken away the rights of the father to grieve is also taken away, for him to seek justice for the murder of his child is taken away.

It amazes me that ppl think it is only the woman that has the right her, considering she didn't get pregnant by herself.

If she has the right to her ovaries, the man has the right to his sperm.

I have to post in several posts, I don't know what's wrong here, but I have trouble posting.

<Your claim that one (in this case the mother) has a duty to keep another human being alive, no matter what, is, IMO, flawed. It does not consider other morally relevant issues, such as the welfare/health of the mother, the source of the pregnancy, and is not grounded on anything that can stand much critical engagement. By this I mean that you have to show us that being a genetically human fetus is enough to be eligible for moral consideration, and also enough to over-ride the rights of a fully formed human person. >

How is it flawed?

As I have said, my right to throw a fist ends at your face. She damages another person's body. When the child is removed it is with fingers, a heart beat, a brain, it's own skin, it's own lungs. These things are usually developed BEFORE the woman is aware that she is pregnant. There is a reason I posted the developmental stages of the fetus in my first post.

Let's look at the other side of the coin. You're saying that a mother's welfare is much more important than her child, so basically you will not be opposed to me killing my child bcus I can't care for him or her?

Who are we to decide which human being's life is more important?

All our rights that we have today is dependent on our right to life. If I am not alive, I will not have to worry about my welfare. If I am not alive I will not have to worry about my right to vote, neither will I worry about my so called right to an abortion.

Every human right we have is based upon the right to life, so how is it that the other rights trump the right to life?

Funny enough every other right is limited. I have the right to vote if I am a responsible citizen, just bcus I am alive doesn't mean I even have the right to vote.

ok seriously this thing is bothering me, I will continue in the next post, sorry about this.

as I was saying, every other right is limited.

The right to be angry ends at me taking out my anger.

But the right to life is not limited this is by natural law, it is called philosophy, plain and simple.

First and foremost I have the right to live, bcus if I do not live I do not have any other rights.

Even dead ppl have more rights that an unborn child. A dead person has the right to their property (well at least in the U.S. they do), they have the right to their lawyer.

They will never benefit the society again, they are dead and gone, they will no longer develop as humans develop, but those who can make a difference in our lives do not have the right to live?

On what planet does that make sense?

Poster/Topic. . .
Technically YES

That someone's life depends of you does not mean you are OBLIGATED to preserve that life. If you are the only possible blood match for a dying accident victim who needs blood, it may be a really nice thing for you to offer blood, but for someone to call you a murderer for not keeping that person alive, I think, you would agree is kinda ridiculous, even if you caused the accident. So i think while your post may evoke some emotion from the reader, it, IMO, does little to make a case for the right of a fetus to override that of the mother

One more time, my right to shoot a gun ends at your body. My right to push a knife ends at your body.

The mother's right to do with her body whatever she pleases (no one really has that right actually) ends at the babies body.

The problem here is that the rights given to the mother is no right at all. It is not meant to be legal. The problem is with the law itself.
Just as the right to own slaves was wrong although legal. Just because something is legal does not mean that it should be legal.
The rights to own slaves was never supposed to be legal because black people are human beings. But how did they get it to be legal? By stating that blacks were not really human, if you are unaware of it please look up the Tuskegee experiment, where scientists carried out experiments on blacks to determine if they are human.

The same is being done to the unborn child. To give women the rights they are not naturally given, they've resorted to calling the unborn baby anything but human. What was done to blacks is being done to the unborn children.

With or without the law we all have the right to life, beginning at conception, ending at natural death.

@ Krayola

I will return, I have to take my 13 and a half weeks pregnant aunt to work.

Bye.

Tudór:

In essence you know you're illiterate. Well done.

Admission is the first step to solution.

i have given you too much room to display your illiteracy so you can keep enjoying your newly found wife.

~Lady~:

My question to you is that if you come across a mother cutting off her child's head will you turn the other way?
If you were standing by and watching a college girl being despoiled and brutally murdered by a man, you will walk away as if it is not your business?


I agree it isn't only about the fetus, but my rights to throw a punch ends at your face. You have a right not to be hit by my fist.

In general, I will consider other variables e.g my safety, before I do anything. The life directly at risk will not be the only consideration

A child is, IMO, entitled to moral consideration. A fetus in the early stages of pregnancy is not, IMO, entitled to the same moral consideration that a child is. What exactly is it about about a fetus that makes it entitled to the same consideration a child is?

You are pretty much arguing that a fetus is a person (or should be considered one) from the moment of conception, because it can potentially develop into a human being; but I don't think that quite does it. An orange seed can develop into an orange tree, but an orange seed is NOT an orange tree. While I do agree that a fetus develops into a human person before birth, I do not believe that a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy is a human person, nor entitled to all the right a human person is.

The potential to become something does not make you something.

Now, I will grant you that a fetus is a human person from the moment of conception and does have a right to life. Your argument then becomes that A fetus is a person, every person has a right to life, so a fetus has a right to life. . . and even though a mother has a right to decide what occurs in and/or happens to her body, the fetus' (person's) right to life outweighs that. Am I correct? I just want to make sure before I deal with that.

~Lady~:

As to the dangers of abortion to women, having known many women myself who've had abortions and the psychological problems it has caused for them, some of them even attemtpting to commit suicide, I know abortion does not benefit the woman.

Today there are women who are speaking out about their abortions and the complications in their life that has arisen from it.

There are also women who have had abortions and lived happily ever after. I don't think you can decide for everyone based on the few people you are familiar with. Just my opinion though.

~Lady~:

It amazes me that ppl think it is only the woman that has the right her, considering she didn't get pregnant by herself.
If she has the right to her ovaries, the man has the right to his spermatozoa.

I think it is appropriate for the father to have a say, but ultimately it is the woman's body and time, and the final decision, in my humble opinion, must be hers.

~Lady~:

@ Krayola

I will return, I have to take my 13 and a half weeks pregnant aunt to work.

Bye.

No wahala. Drive safe. I'm also on my way out but I'll be checking in to check for your response later. 

good talks jenna, especially the part of bible says we are not alive until our first breath.
this is my first of hearing such, am not a christian so i can be excused.
Abortion is a personal decision.
i believe in soul and a body so until the fetus takes its first breath, its just a body.
and like the Buddhist says self discipline with awareness of consequences.
So if a gal is not that disciplined to avoid getting pregnant then she should face the consequences wateva it may be

No. In my opinion, they is not the same. Infants are sentient beings with relatively well developed brains and nervous systems. They are sentient beings, and sentience is, IMO, a fundamental criterion for moral consideration. A fetus without a functioning brain or nervous system is not eligible for the same moral consideration of a sentient being that can be harmed in ways that matter to him/her. And is IMO, definitely not eligible to the kind of moral consideration that will trump the consideration of a fully developed sentient human.

Even though it has a heart beat at week 4?
A well developed cardiovascular system at week 4, many women don't even know they're pregnant at this point.
But let me address your statement directly

1. Infants brain development at the time of birth are the same as when in the womb, after the embryonic stage not much development takes place, all that is needed to recognise it as a human is already in place. This is the science they refuse to tell ppl about. It is developed enough to cause the heart to beat. I saw this with my own eyes.
2. This brain development happens at week 8 and before even, because after this time, there are movements in the womb, neurons are already in place and function.
3. By week 12 you can already see the brain, and all things functioning properly.
4. The brain has to be developed enough, in order for the other body parts to develop and start functioning. So it is enough.
5. An infants brain is not well developed, it is still developing, what the infant can recognise is the same as it can recognise as a fetus.
6. Example, my Godson, when in the womb his mother called him Preston, when he came out she would call him Emmanuel, he wouldn't respond, but when called Preston, he responded, you will see him make movements that he recognises not just the voice but the name. This was recognisable from the womb.

As for pain "Pain pathways run from sensory receptors in the skin to those in the brain. Nerve endings that sense pain are at least as dense in the skin of a newborn as in an adult. Such receptors appear around the mouth in the 5th week after conception, and are present in the face, the palms, and the soles of the feet by the 9th week, spreading to the trunk, arms, and legs by the 13th week, and to all areas of the skin by the 18th week. The development of the neocortex, the largest part of the brain, begins at 6 weeks after conception, and by 18 weeks a full complement of nerve cells is present. The evidence thus suggests that by late in gestation the fetus has developed sufficiently to sense pain." - Pain and its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus.
K.J.S. Anand, M.B.B.S., and P.R. Hickey, M.D.,

<Your claim is based on being genetically human, and not being morally human. As I pointed out earlier, if what we are talking about is genetic humanity, I should be in jail for over-self-service. Having human genes, or DNA, or whateva is not the same as being a human being. And being human life does not mean all others must do all it takes to preserve your life, regardless of cost to them>

Well then if that's the case pedophiles, molestors, sexual abusers, murderers and such are not human beings. If only morality determine us to be human beings, actually by that logic none of us are human beings, bcus at some point in our life we have been immoral.

Infact you have it backwards, if we are only just moral genetic human beings then whacking off should land you in jail. But bcus we are genetic human beings by science/nature whacking off doesn't land u in jail, neither does adultery and the likes.

The only objective way to differentiate us from other mammals is through our genetics not bcus we are moral, take a look around, not a lot of people are moral.

I have never heard any scientist base proof on our humanity by citing morality as the main source, but rather genetics.
It is our DNA that proves us as humans, it is our genetic make up that proves us as humans.

When the scientists were trying to see if blacks were indeed human, they looked at our genetic make up rather than morality. Their morality was already screwed up. If it was mainly moral, they would've taken a look at the anatomy of the black male and black female and see that they have the same anatomy as that of the white male and female. But no they needed to check the genetic make up.

I don't know what science you're studying, but it's never used morality as the basis of humanity.

Going by this logic, Charles Dawkins would not be human.