On balance, abortion is immoral

Thanks Philocat for starting continuing to participate in this debate, I have enjoyed my first chance at discussing this issue in a debate on this site. Before I begin my rebuttals, I just wanted to briefly summarize my arguments for the readership. Argument #1: The value of human beings is not in the fact of life, being a living organism, but rather in the ability to have consciousness and experience pain and joy. Argument #2: The immorality of criminalizing abortion, that banning the practice causes much more harm than good as it harms the mothers and does not do too much to prevent abortion. Argument #3: There are circumstances beyond the health of a mother in terms of rape and severe genetic defects that justify the use of abortion. Now on to the final rebuttals. Rebuttal #1: Appeal to Extremes Fallacy? My opponent has charged me with committing the appeal to extremes fallacy, which to me demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of this fallacy. The appeal to extreme fallacy happens when a person attempts to turn an argument into an absurd one, by appealing to extremes. Here is an example: "Don’t forget God’s commandment, “thou shall not kill”. By using mouthwash, you are killing 99.9% of the germs that cause bad breath. Prepare for Hell."[1] My argument rather is factoring in all circumstances which regard abortion, and takes a realistic approach to how a society should regard the act. Rebuttal #2: Justification for killing My opponent has only granted one instance for ending another life, which is self-defense (or I guess the health of the mother in aborting a baby). This reveals something fundamental, in that it reveals that the act of killing is not wrong in and of itself, or else it would be universally wrong in any circumstance. What is therefore important is the INTENT of the person performing the killing, indeed he calls the act of abortion murder, yet would not call abortion murder if it were for the purpose of preserving the mother's life. In my opinion, this brings up a fatal hole in my opponent's argument in that murder requires malice aforethought, and if it doesn't apply in the context he allows, why then does it apply in other situations? Is a mother malicious for knowing she cannot support the child? Or is she malicious in rejecting to carry the child of her rapist, or want to go through the horror of giving birth to an anencephalic baby? I will leave this to the voter to answer. Rebuttal #3: Difference between a fetus and babies My opponent appeals to the differences of an adult and a baby are even more significant than the differences between a fetus and a baby, therefore my argument does not apply. I however was not appealing to the significance of the differences, but rather the difference of consciousness. A fetus in the first trimester (most of it at least) is not conscious, it cannot experience pain or joy, and is in essence a set of organs within unique DNA up to that point. Rebuttal #4: Utilitarian ethics He goes on to argue that utilitarian ethics further supports the prohibition of abortion, because abortion prevents the child from living a life and thus being happy. This analysis of course ignores several important factors, 1) the fetus does not yet experience happiness or suffering or even the desire to live, 2) the mother currently can experience suffering and happiness and therefore her present consideration and choice is much more pressing as it is her body, 3) the mother is in the best position to make the choice whether or not to keep the baby based upon her assessment of her future and the babies future. Rebuttal #5: Kantian Ethics It seems odd that one would appeal to John Stuart Mill's ethical system and then right afterwards Immanuel Kant's, as the two men definitely disagreed on matters of ethics. However, the problem with appealing to Kantian Ethics, is simply the problems with Kantian ethics itself. This ethical system makes presuppositions about the metaphysical nature of mankind and thus based on these assumptions makes man the one who determines morality makes it contradictory to then assert that morality is a priori. In that human beings are subjective creatures, as can be observed by the distinct differences we share in moral convictions. Rebuttal #6: Moral Consistency I will simply charge that I don't think my opponent has sufficiently determined why one must be consistent. He asserts that it would make a logical contradiction, although being socially inconsistent is not akin to being logically contradictory. He also assumes that doing something logically contradictory makes it immoral, as if logic guided morality. No such basis can be established, so I don't see this as a valid argument. Nor do I think support women's rights to have an abortion is inconsistent as it takes into account the specific intents and circumstances involved with abortions. Rebuttal #7: Potential Consciousness? The fetus can only develop consciousness after a brain has been developed, and prior to this time there is no potential for consciousness to arise. In the case of a coma, this person presently has a brain and consciousness can arise at any point, and due to this person being conscious prior, they as an individual can communicate their desires of what can be done for them in an unconscious state such as a coma. A fetus, which has no consciousness or will, is subject to that of the mother's desire and wishes. Rebuttal #8: Legalizing based off of being immoral? It has been noted that my opponent has argued that we don't legalize things based on them being a detriment to society, but rather for the basis of immorality, which really is like answering a question with a question. As one must then wonder, why is it immoral? We as a society rather value personal property and freedom, therefore criminalizing the act of theft is important to preserve these. Many may appeal to some form of objective morality, but this in my opinion only raises more questions. Our laws and morals have to do with what we value, so speaking directly about that is important. Rebuttal #9: Anencephalic Baby My opponent agrees that there is no instrumental purpose for keeping the anencephalic baby alive, but then argues that this basis would allow for the euthanizing of the elderly. I disagree that the elderly have no instrumental purpose, and also point to the difference between an anencephalic fetus and an elderly person. One of them is conscious and has a will and emotions and can experience suffering and joy. While the other has no brain, or potential to develop a brain and thus is simply a mindless collection of cells, tissues and organ. Prolonging its life will only prolong the suffering of the family and also put the mother at the unnecessary risk and hardship of going through childbirth. Rebuttal #10: Adoption as an alternative in the case of rape My opponent finally argues that abortion would still be a punishment to the baby, even though no punishment is inferred on the part of the mother. I don't know how it can be seen as a punishment, as a fetus has no will or desires and thus cannot be deprived of anything it wants. Also, when no punishment is inferred, I don't see how one can be ascertained as to have taken place. Finally, while adoption is an alternative to abortion, that still wouldn't negate the fact that abortion should still be a relevant option for the women as she has rights over her own body. I thank my opponent for his efforts and hope for a fair reading of both sides of the debate. Best Regards, TrueScotsman [1] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...;