Abortion Is Wrong

Introduction Firstly, I will begin by attacking my opponent's arguments for the impermissibility of abortion. Secondly, I will be defending my original arguments for the moral permissibility of abortion. With that said, let me begin. DefinitionsHomo sapien:"The modern species of humans. " [1]Speciesism:"a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species. " [2]Permanent coma:"a profound state of unconsciousness caused by disease, injury, poison, or other means, and for which it has been determined that there exists no reasonable expectation of regaining consciousness. " [3]SpeciesismPro's argument is that a fetus is alive and a member of the species homo sapien, and because of that, it should have a right to life. This argument is speciesist, because it claims that a fetus has a right to life only because it is human. This line of argument advanced by my opponent is no different than a racist saying that white people have rights in virtue of them being white, or a sexist saying that men have rights in virtue of them being men. Race, sex, or species in of itself and irrespective of other characteristics and capacities, should not determine moral value. Moreover, this argument by him leads to absurd conclusions. To demonstrate this, let me provide an example. The Permanently ComatoseLets go back to my opponent's original argument. If you remember correctly he claims that a fetus has a right to life because 1) it's human, and 2) it's alive. Therefore, because it's both alive and human, it must have a right to life. If we are to accept this argument, then we must also accept that it would be morally wrong to end the life of someone who is permanently comatose. This is because 1) the permanently comatose are human, and 2) they are, technically speaking, alive. However, it's obviously silly to believe that someone who is permanently unconscious could have a right to life. It would mean that a family who decided to let their love one die because he was in this kind of state murderers. After all, the permanently unconscious meet the criteria that my opponent has outlined. Namely, being alive and human. I will now respond to the objections raised by Pro to my original arguments. Pro states that my desire view on the right to life implies that it would not be morally wrong to kill a one year old, because it is not self aware and thus cannot have a desire to continue living. I think we can be certain that a fetus does not have a desire to live, given the fact that it's not even conscious. However, it's harder to say whether or not a one year old can desire to live. Here, I think, we approach a grey area. Therefore, because we cannot be as confident in this kind of situation, we should err on the side of caution. Moreover, I think that when it comes to taking life one should make decisions in life as early as possible, and not wait a long time at all. This is because there is the fact of human attachment. Also, Pro asked me if it should be allowed for a mother to kill her one year old because it is a nuisance to her. My answer would be absolutely not. In that kind of case the woman has already assumed guardianship over the child, consented to take care of it, taken it home from the hospital, and has fed and clothed it. This woman has gone through extraordinary means to take care of this child, and so to kill it would be wrong. So in summary, killing the one year old would be wrong because it's possible that it could desire to live. Given the fact that a one year old is conscious, has been exposed to the world around him, can have experiences, can have concepts and desires for food, water, and comfort from a parent. These are all things that increase the likelihood of it having a desire to live. Whereas we cannot say it in terms of the unconscious fetus. Finally, I will respond to Pro's criticism of the violinist analogy. Pro states that this analogy does not fit very well with pregnancy, since most women become pregnant through consensual sex, not rape. So the kidnapping in this thought experiment, it is said, doesn't work. There are two things I would like to say to this. The first is that it doesn't matter if the woman was raped or not. This is because the fetus is still using the woman's body against her will, which is a violation of her right to autonomy. So again, rape or not, the fetus does not have the right to use the woman's body against her will. The second thing I would like to say is that if you noticed at the beginning of the debate my opponent said this in the first round:"I am taking the stance that abortion is wrong in all cases, including rape and incest, but excluding instances when the mother's life is in danger. "This means abortion, in his eyes, is only morally justified when the mother's life is in danger. So, I find it strange that my opponent took the time to point out earlier that my violinist analogy was not like pregnancy. Because from the looks of it, the violinist analogy seems to morally justify abortion in the case of rape since, in that particular kind of case, it's more like a kidnapping because the woman does not engage in consensual sex. The purpose of me pointing this out is this. My opponent has the burden of proof to show that abortion is morally wrong in the case of rape and incest. So if I can point to a case where abortion could be morally justified in the case of rape, he loses. Since he will then not have filled his BOP. And I believe through the violinist analogy I have shown abortion to be permissible in that kind of case. Later on Pro makes what I think is a false counter analogy to my violinist thought experiment. In my opponent's analogy the person who has stepped in front of his gun is not using his body against his will. He has not kidnapped you and hooked you up to him to sustain his own life. So, because of that, I must reject your counter analogy to mine. The last thing Pro says in response to my violinist analogy is:"So I would absolutely say that the person should remain hooked up to the person whether he was a famous violinist or a homeless bum, one person's life is astronomically much more important than your own personal 9 months of independency. "You might think that the kidnapped person should remain hooked up to the violinist in order to save his life. However, while it would be very kind of you to stay hooked up to him, you nevertheless cannot be considered immoral for unhooking yourself from him. Others should not have the right to take you away against your will to sustain the life of another. That would be crazy. If I have a kidney disease, and I need someone to be hooked up to me in order for my life to be preserved, I don't then have the right to kidnap someone against their will and hook them up to me. Such an action by me would be wrong, and I shouldn't have the right to do that. Conclusion Pro has failed to argue successfully why abortion is morally wrong, and his objections to my arguments have no merit. Sources: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Animal Liberation by Peter Singer . http://wiki.lawdepot.com...