Abortions are morally wrong.

Thank you for this debate, Freeman. A. The Biological Version of the Central Anti Abortion Argument 1. A Potentialities Derivation My opponent assumes that if some rights are based on potentiality, then all rights must be based on potentiality. This is an unsupported assumption. My opponent also assumes that a potential being must have every right that what it will become would have if my logic is correct. However, the only right we're discussing is the right to life, which I say belong to fetuses, being human and potential people. The right to vote is a right that is earned over time. My opponent fails to differentiate the two. 2. Coma Guy, Fainting Guy, and Snoring Guy "This is false. Comma guy was once conscious and had the desire to keep living.... his preference to continue living in that future is what establishes his right to life when he is temporarily unconscious." Notice how everything Freeman said was in the past tense except the sudden claim that he has preferences. Well, just because he had preferences doesn't mean he has them anymore. Big difference. "Your entire argument in this area is fallacious." You're going to need to support that claim a bit better than this. 3. Genetic Manipulation It's nice and all that Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, but even he should cite his sources. We can't take anything said by a scientist as fact, because scientists often disagree. For example, they currently disagree over global warming [1]. If one tells you it's caused by humans, and the other disagrees, they can't both be right. We'd go with whoever gave reason for his argument. In the case of Sam Harris, there is no evidence or reason, but just statement. My opponent again claims I use false analogies, but I already explained why false analogies are not what he thinks they are. He then claims that we are disputing over "common knowledge." Well, thanks for poisoning the well. However, this "common knowledge" still doesn't seem to be very well sourced. "Different cells develop into the different organisms that give rise to a human." Sure. "We all start off as one cell and those cells multiply until they eventually become a blastocyst." However, that is one specific type of cell, a zygote. Your argument originally was that "every cell in the body with a nucleus has the potential to become another person with the right genetic manipulation." This has not been supported in the slightest. B. Contention -1: A fetus doesn't have a right to life. My opponent claims that comparing two different things (conscious adult, unconscious fetus) is a false analogy. Well, all analogies compare two different things. My opponent's accusation is ridiculous. 3. Desire to Live "A body cannot hold a desire unless it contains consciousness." This statement is not backed by anything. As for the rigor mortis, this is just a side effect of death caused by complete accident in the body with no intentions. It can be compared to a panic attack. In a panic attack, one does things without desiring to. However, a blastocyst's actions are deliberate attempts to grow. 4. What constitutes murder? I've already explained why potentialities are relevant, and why a desire need not be conscious. C. Contention +1: This syllogism affirms abortion to be morally wrong. "For the moment, let us set aside the fact that this assertion goes unsupported and is therefore unsound." My source explained the standard of good conduct for Christianity. It is supported, and therefore sound. "Like its predecessor, it is logically impossible for this premise to be correct." My opponent makes the same error as he does with the original syllogism. He fails to make a distinction between "standard of good conduct" and "good standard of conduct." "Christianity cannot give a universal standard of good conduct..." Suddenly, the word "universal" is thrown in, with no relevance and no purpose. "...different branches of Christianity give contradictory accounts of what constitutes good conduct." This is completely irrelevant to attempting to disprove Christianity having standards of good conduct. In fact, it only supports it. My opponent has already conceded the rest of my syllogism to be logically sound, so according to the syllogism, because Christianity is a standard of good conduct, the voters should vote PRO. D. Conclusion Analysis - Round 1 "It's a significant dividing line because people don't want to be murdered when they faint or go to sleep." Nor do fetuses. "By murdering someone that is sleeping you are denying them their right continue living and disregarding their future desires." By murdering a fetus that is developing you are denying it its right to continue living and disregarding its future desires. That actually mirrored better than I thought it would. "Consciousness is a prerequisite for holding any actual desires..." Then why does the blastocyst try to survive? This is an assumption, and only an assumption. E. Conclusion Analysis - Round 2 "And even though a fetus is a potential person it doesn't have the same properties as an actual person." That doesn't even help your case. "If I were to go into a wildlife reserve and cut down 1000 oak trees that would be a serious crime." This is not because cutting down 1000 oak trees is immoral, but because the wildlife reserve and the environment own those oak trees, and you would be committing property damage [2]. "However, eating 1000 acorns is not the equivalent to destroying oak trees even though an acorn is a potential tree." That is only because you bought the acorns to eat. If you didn't, you'd be under arrest anyway. And the reason people are more concerned about their oak trees is because they are investments for the lumber industry, and killing an oak tree would result in all of the nutrients and water than went into growing it for the lumber industry being wasted. An acorn still has value. And this entire thing doesn't even apply to humans, as they are not private property. "You can't 'discriminate' against something that doesn't have any rights." Circular reasoning [3]. The only reason you don't recognize the rights of blastocysts is because you're discriminating against them when considering what can have rights. "...if we disregard consciousness as an important factor in determining who gets a right to life we would have to give brain dead humans a right to life." Brain-dead humans don't have the potential to recover consciousness, which is the reason why they are killed. Otherwise, we'd keep them alive. My opponent is trying to thrust unnecessary burdens upon my position. F. Conclusion Analysis - Round 3 "Mongeese has continuously confused biological directives with conscious desires..." No, I said that biological directives are unconscious desires, not conscious desires. I never said directives were conscious. Get your facts straight. "...and has failed to deliver any compelling argument of his own." My syllogism and my criterion for determining the right to life still stand. "Consciousness is necessary to hold a desire to live..." No, it is only necessary for a conscious desire, not an unconscious one. "...and without it an entity can't have a right to life." Doesn't even follow. "Furthermore, the arguments he has put forward can be shown to be fallacious." Then show them to be fallacious. It's not the voter's job. "Potentials can't establish someone's right to vote any more than they can establish an unconscious being's right to life." Exactly. The right to life is the only one established by potentials. In conclusion, fetuses have the right to life as potential humans, and my soundproof syllogism says that you should vote PRO. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... Thanks.