Abortion is Generally Immoral

Pro Case:Premise 1: Pro wisely notes the distinction between growth and expansion, which I easily concede because it is true. With that being said, the fact that a zygote or embryo grows does little to support the notion that it is a full-fledged human (yet), or even alive yet in the sense that we say humans are alive. The universe was a bad analogy on my part, allow me to present a better one (or two. ) A tree can grow, for example, much larger and for much longer than a human. We know that it too is biologically alive, and it represents (usually) a larger physical, living entity than us. However, we do not say that the tree has much inherent value in it, other than to present us with paper, or firewood, or oxygen. And we most certainly do not consider the killing of a tree to be generally immoral. As a second example, we generally consider animals more "alive" than a tree, although this is not true in any biological or genetic sense. We recognize that they possess some functional capacity for perception, cognition, and action. Anatomically and physiologically speaking, many mammals are remarkably similar to humans. However, we still judge them to have less capacity for these traits than us, and therefore most of us don't consider them as alive as us, and most of us don't consider killing (or eating) them to be an immoral action. Why these biases? On what basis do we make these judgements? I will make an effort to offer an explanation in defense of my own case, but for now a hint may be found in the fact that the name of the species Homo Sapiens roughly means "Knowing Man," or somewhat more archaically, "Wise, Earthly Being. "Furthermore, perhaps my opponent has not made the fallacy of the beard argument, but it is entirely possible that the authorities he appeals to, when claiming the pro-life position is the most consistent one, have. At the very least, they are being logically inconsistent. This is because they claim to be pro-life, in that they believe that life should be protected from the moment of conception onward. However, they only make this case for human life. Again, on what basis could they make this value-distinction about different types of life on anything other than their own prejudice towards similar beings to themselves, or their own favoritism towards their own human abilities (i. e. higher consciousness? )The authorities don't appear to have a consensus about what makes human life special, or even where it begins in general, my opponent is correct in saying, however my own position has and will consistently claim that consciousness is what makes human life special and that we have sufficient evidence to determine when it develops, and therefore the dissent within the authoritative pro-choice community is irrelevant to it (my own case. )I shall deal with my opponent's 3rd premise and conclusion in defense of my own case. Con Case: C1: Premise 1: Perhaps I did beg the question at first. Allow me to answer for my assumption with an explanation. I have already alluded to it in asking on what basis do we determine human life to be more valuable than any other form of life. Trees and mammals are just as alive as us in both the genetic and biological senses. So why are we special? The only possible explanation is that we consider ourselves special for a mere two reasons. The first is we ourselves are human, so we are naturally prejudiced to favor ourselves. This is obvious, but it is far from a rational reason to accept ourselves as special. The less obvious answer is that we consider ourselves superior to all other forms of life because of our abilities of so-called higher consciousness, especially our capacity for language and symbolic reasoning. Despite what many cultures throughout history believed, this capacity is entirely seated in the neurological structures of the human brain. We have the disproportionately largest cerebral cortex, especially the prefrontal lobes and visual cortex. This accounts for our higher capacity for planning, reasoning, and imagination. The most counterintuitive aspect of the brain is that it is also the seat of human emotions, not the heart. These traits are where we derive our own value from. [1]We could not possibly account for own preferential treatment of ourselves and other human beings at the expense of other life in any other way than these two, without sinking to the level of appeals to faith, religious dogma, or abstract normative reasoning. One can be deprived without knowing it, this is true. However, this could not possibly harm you until you knew it. The child in Pro's example, for instance, would not be any worse off after this hypothetical event than he was before it. The same goes for an unborn zygote/embryo. If you were never born, you would never know that you were to have been born. You would have never known of the inheritance you had missed out on, and therefore you would not experience any negative effects whatsoever, or any effects at all for that matter. As for the idea that this standard would allow us to kill people simply because they are unconscious, that is not true. Our own consciousness is derived from experience. We accumulate memories and this constitutes our identity. So it is again like the child inheriting money. The memories are the currency of consciousness. Killing a human that has already been born and long since developed a conscious awareness would be like robbing this child's bank account directly, it would be like stealing money he already had. Most abortions, on the other hand, happen before any experience is accumulated. This is more like closing a bank account that is still empty because you can not afford to fill it. As from the Beckwith/Lee hypothesis, it is again inconsistent. If they had been pro-choice, they easily could have made the same argument against pro-life in saying that the pro-life position would necessarily lead to being able to justify the killing of one child in order to have two on the basis of creating more life later. It simply doesn't work. The claim that the inherent capacity for consciousness makes human life valuable is inconsistent with the original claim that mere life makes humans valuable. C2: I have defended my claim that consciousness defines human life in this round. I would like to point out that in the U. S. , legally, abortions have been excluded from the definition of "murder" (which is a legal term) since the Roe v. Wade decision. As such, terming them murder in this debate is merely a use of an argument by emotive language (loaded language. ) The appeal to pity argument is weak because any argument in a moral context boils down to emotion and empathy (including Pro's whole position. ) Furthermore, it was meant to suggest that in most of these cases, it would be the mark of an unsound judgement (i. e. immoral) to allow the mother to attempt to care for these children, for the sake of the mother, her existing children, and the potential child. Lastly, as Pro mentions, adoption is expensive and therefore most babies given up for adoption do not immediately get adopted, and many suffer through foster care and orphanages for quite some time first, if they are to be adopted at all. A rational, moral person would not allow them to suffer through such an existence unnecessarily. [2][3][4]C3: I maintain my position that an unconscious, biological entity is not a child yet. As such, it would be more reasonable, and thus moral, to wait for a decent condition to raise a child in than to submit it to pain and suffering (such as they would be in C2 conditions. )[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.urmc.rochester.edu...[3]http://healthwyze.org...[4]http://www.theorphansociety.org...