Hot button issue

Okay, well then time to refute. "First of all, sorry about the forfeited round, my internet was unexpectedly out for a few days." No problem, happens to everyone. There's plenty of rounds in this debate. "First of all, I will state that if loss of future experiences is the only reason that killing is wrong, then is, for example, causing blindness almost as bad as killing someone? (I use blindness because most human experiences are based on sight)" While obviously blinding someone is wrong, as it does deprive them of some experiences, I mean experiences like making friends, learning new things, enjoying life. "For another, it is mistaken to say that to kill someone is to rob them of future experiences, because once dead, a person is dead. They can no longer experience anything, and so are in no way deprived." Two flaws with this argument. First, take this hypothetical: If I came up to and said, hey, surfride, can I kill you? It will be painless and quick, and hey, you won't even know what you're missing, because you'll be dead. Your family has decided that they're fine with it, so how 'bout it? You would most likely say "No way! I have a full life ahead of me, and I don't want to lose that." The experience is still of value even if you don't know what you're missing. The right of your future self to have a life is denied. It's the same with abortion. Even though the fetus has no rights, and is not conscious of what it's missing, and will never know, you are depriving future Johnny of his life. Future Johnny has rights to a life of value, but if fetus Johnny dies before he fulfills that future, Future Johnny is out of luck. Second, it's not only fetus Johnny and Future Johnny that we are worrying about. If the mother does not want the baby, instead of aborting it, she can give it up for adoption, and be rewarded with a small financial sum (ever seen Juno?). If you just abort the fetus, the potential adoptive family is denied of Johnny, an angel child that will cause them great happiness and joy. And what about the friends that Johnny would have, Billy, Tommy, and Sue, there potential best friend for life who opens their sushi bar with them, never comes. And what about Jane, whose dream man fits perfectly with Johnny's description, and she lives right next door to Johnny's potential parents, Jane would've married Johnny, and they would have had lots of babies, named Phil, Jethro, Sally, and Samantha. By aborting fetus Johnny, you have changed the lives of all these hypothetical people. Of course, fetus Johnny may have had the bad luck to be impregnated by rape into the belly of Darfur JoAnn, but that's an exception to the general rule that abortion is not right. "In fact, if one is a believer in heaven, one could argue that the victim was in fact aided by their demise." So Hitler is a hero, as he sent millions to heaven? Yeah... I think not. "Second, I believe that it is mistaken to say that a fetus was robbed of possible experiences, because a fetus is unable to appreciate the possibility of any future experiences, and is also incapable of drawing upon the past to tell about these future possibilities." But the fetus would be able to if we did not act. The fetus would have a future, and future Johnny is deprived of his awesome life as a happily married co-owner of a sushi bar. Phil, Jethro, Sally, and Samantha are deprived of their conception. "To address the Kantian argument, yes, if universalized, abortion would cause the human race to go extinct, but that is not relevant, because the entire human race does not seek to have a simultaneous abortion." You just missed the whole point of Kantian ethics. The whole point of it is that any action must be able to be made a universal law, and if abortion became a universal law, if people followed it, life would not work. "Second, you say that the extinction of the human race would be bad "By most accounts." I think you mean "by most HUMAN accounts." I think we'd all agree that just about 100% of wild animals, barring perhaps seagulls, squirrels, and pigeons, would see the extermination of the human race as a great thing." Who cares about animals? They're nothing more than automatons. (Now I know PETA is after me). Really though, what they want is not important. "Finally, I think that the rights of the mother have a say here too. Most abortion debates tend to focus almost exclusively on the rights of the fetus, and I believe that it's not jsut about that. A mother can make a far better decision about her ability or desire to care for a child than the fetus can, and if she feels that it is in her best interest to terminate, she should be allowed. As a measure of value to society, the mother is worth far more because she is already able to reproduce, and as a measure of humanity, she is also far more progressed because she is self conscious, is capable of logic, etc. Therefore, she should be allowed to make a decision, as that capability is in the best interests of society." If the mother does not want to care for her child, then I am sure, there are plenty of adoptive parents that would LOVE to have fetus Johnny as their new baby. I again remind you of Juno. Of course, if the mother lives in a warzone, then abortion may be a good idea, but, again, generally, a mother that just accidentally gets pregnant can spend nine months of her life with a baby in her tummy. She doesn't have to have anything to do with it afterwards, she can just poop it out and be done. While a burden, it is irrelevant compared to the future life of value of the fetus.