On balance, abortion is immoral

Thank you for posting a clearly well-thought out opening statement; I will now refute it. Rebuttal of Argument #1 My opponent's first argument roughly states that the value of a human life is its consciousness, and therefore a foetus's lack of consciousness is the moral justification for killing it. This argument is dependent on the syllogism that a lack of consciousness justifies killing. I argue that this is a false premise. My opponent recognises that comatose patients are not conscious and yet are kept alive, but he claims that patients in permanent comas should not be kept alive anyway. He does not voice his opinion on whether patients in temporary comas should be kept alive, but I will assume that he agrees they should be. To put my opponent's point more succinctly, we ought not to kill those in a temporary state of unconsciousness but we are justified in killing those in a permanent state of unconsciousness. However, this point does not escape that we ought not to kill foetuses, because foetuses ARE in a temporary state of unconsciousness (from the first to 26th week after conception), after which they are conscious. Therefore, as foetuses ARE in a temporary state of unconsciousness, we ought not to kill them. In a similar way that we ought not to kill those in temporary comas, people who are knocked out, or people who are in a dreamless sleep. Rebuttal of argument #2 My opponent argues that banning abortions will harm women who undergo an abortion due to the unsafe nature of illegal abortions. However, this is not a valid justification for legalising abortion due to the following reasons: 1. Women choose to have an abortion, which is to say that they willingly let themselves have a potentially-dangerous operation. Just as a bungee-jumper may die after his cord snaps, he inadvertently consents to the possibility of death when he consents to act dangerously. To summarise, women who die in illegal abortions bring it upon themselves; nobody forced them to have an abortion. 2. Some immoral acts are dangerous, such as burglary. It is absurd to suggest that we should legalise burglary to reduce the amount of burglars who die whilst engaging in burglary-related activities. In a similar way, we should not legalist abortion (an immoral act) just to safeguard the perpetrators of the immoral act. 3. My arguments in round 2 have already ascertained that foetuses are human beings; which is to say that they have inherent value. Legalising abortion causes far more foetal deaths than the female deaths that result from illegal abortions. I also argue that illegal abortion would not cause as many deaths if it was illegal today, as opposed to in the early 20th century. This is because there is currently less of a stigma towards single-parenthood (so less social pressure to abort) and medical hygiene has improved on a general scale (1). My opponent goes on to argue that 'prohibition of abortion does not prevent it from happening'. However, this is a poor argument in favour of legal abortion. If we recognise that an action is immoral then we ought to criminalise it simply because it is immoral, just because it won't stop the action happening altogether it does not mean we ought to legalise it. For example, criminalising stealing does not stop stealing happening, but it is absurd to use this as an argument for the legalisation of stealing. Rebuttal of argument #3 The next argument in favour of the morality of abortion is that it should be allowed in cases where the child has extreme birth defects. However, as there is no distinct difference between a foetus and a newborn baby, if we can justify killing an anaphylactic human being inside the womb, we can justify killing the same human being outside the womb. But can we justify killing an anaphylactic newborn baby? I would argue that we cannot. If a human being has a fatal deformity then it should be treated as a dying patient, which is to say that it should be left to die by natural causes, that is if it will die anyway. It is a very ableist attitude to judge the lives of others as not worth living and kill them as a result of it. We do not allow non-voluntary euthanasia outside the womb, so why should we allow it inside the womb if there is no difference in the levels of consciousness? The case of extreme deformities is also commonly guilty of the appeal to pity fallacy (2). The severely handicapped are easily pitied and this can warp our rational judgement. If we are to make a correct ethical decision then we ought not to be influenced by pity. Another exigent circumstance, according to my opponent, is in cases of rape or incest. My opponent mentions that to force a woman ' to keep the child of the rapist is incredibly immoral', but he does not justify this assertion. Of course it is horrible for a mother to have to carry her rapist's child, but this does not justify abortion. This is because the foetus is not guilty of its father's crimes and therefore should not be punished for them. Furthermore, an abortion in the case of rape is unnecessary. She does not have to keep the child; there are adoption services where she can put her child if she does not want to bring it up. Moreover, having an abortion does not 'undo' the rape in any way. The woman was still raped, abortion won't change that, it is just adding another immoral act onto another. Often, abortion actually harms women's mental health (3), so it would be not necessarily help to have an abortion after being raped. To conclude, my opponent makes some interesting arguments, but they are not valid one's to support the supposed moral permissibility of abortion. (1)http://www.haciendapub.com... (2) http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... (3)http://www.afterabortion.com...