Abortions are morally wrong.

Let me begin by thanking Mongeese for agreeing to debate with me. =========== A. The Biological Version of the Central Anti Abortion Argument =========== 1. A Potentialities Derivation "My opponent's argument is that because we deny a nine-year-old the right to vote, that nine-year-old does not deserve the right to vote." I argue no such thing. The point of the analogy isn't to demonstrate that nine year olds should or should not be allowed to vote. The point is to demonstrate that potential beings don't have the same rights as actual beings. The nine-year old will gain the right to vote when they turn 18. Likewise, the fetus will gain a right to life when it becomes a person. You've simply misunderstood the analogy. Given their respective conditions the nine-year old doesn't have a right to vote and a fetus doesn't have a right to life. If your reasoning were valid then infants should be given the right to vote since a beings potential distinguishes its claim to rights. If you agree that infants should not be given the right to vote then you concede the basis of my argument. A creatures potential is not what determines its rights. 2. Coma Guy, Fainting Guy, and Snoring Guy "Coma Guy has no preferences."- Mongeese This is false. Comma guy was once conscious and had the desire to keep living. Like all humans, comma guy had the capacity to envision the future and his preference to continue living in that future is what establishes his right to life when he is temporarily unconscious. Your entire argument in this area is fallacious. 3. Genetic manipulation My source wasn't just from some "random guy's blog". It was a typed excerpt of a lecture given by Sam Harris, a neuroscientist. [1]-[2] He has just as much authority to speak on matters concerning cognition and genetics as Stephen Hawking does to speak about cosmology. I know you love using false analogies, but they don't work. [3] Sam is an academic; he's not some crackpot that's predicting the end of the world. Besides, It's common knowledge that the genetic manipulation of a cell can create a human. Different cells develop into the different organisms that give rise to a human. [4] We all start off as one cell and those cells multiply until they eventually become a blastocyst. [5] =========== B.Contention -1: A fetus doesn't have a right to life. =========== "My opponent claims that I use a false analogy."- Mongeese Comparing a conscious adult to an unconscious fetus is a false analogy. My assertion remains standing. 3. Does a fetus have a desire to live? A body cannot hold a desire unless it contains consciousness. I've already told you that unconscious bodies can spasm. This doesn't mean they have a desire to move. Furthermore, it's common knowledge that brainstems can cause dead bodies to spasm. But, if you want more information here it is. [6] 4. What constitutes murder? A desire to continue living must be consciously held at some point because potentialities are irrelevant. Once a human acquires a conscious desire to live it attains a right to life, because it can desire to continue living. =========== C.Contention +1: This syllogism affirms abortion to be morally wrong. =========== As a result of my previous criticism my opponent abandons his first syllogism and decides to rework it. However, it fails for the exact same reasons that the first one failed. "1. Christianity is a standard of good conduct." For the moment, let us set aside the fact that this assertion goes unsupported and is therefore unsound. Like its predecessor, it is logically impossible for this premise to be correct. Christianity cannot give a universal standard of good conduct because different branches of Christianity give contradictory accounts of what constitutes good conduct. For example, some branches of Christianity are actually pro choice. [7] Therefore, my opponent's argument has logically incompatible properties, which makes it self-contradictory. [8] And, just as before, this criticism renders the entire syllogism invalid. =========== D.Conclusion Analysis - Round 1 =========== "No, humans have a right to life because they can self-consciously consider the future."-Freeman Oh, really? And the ability to self-consciously consider the future is the dividing line for the right to life because...?- Mongeese It's a significant dividing line because people don't want to be murdered when they faint or go to sleep. Humans are capable of envisioning themselves as existing over time and they can plan for the future. Therefore, by murdering someone that is sleeping you are denying them their right continue living and disregarding their future desires. "A fetus wants to be alive even when it hasn't reached consciousness." Mongeese, a fetus doesn't want anything, because it can't want anything. Their neurological makeup prevents them from being able to desire anything. It's very important that you understand this. Consciousness is a prerequisite for holding any actual desires, and since a fetus doesn't have consciousness it can't hold any preferences. Therefore, it cannot hold a right to life. =========== E.Conclusion Analysis - Round 2 =========== --> "My opponent makes an analogy with oak trees, although we feel no moral duty towards oak trees in the slightest. I don't know what he's trying to get at here." You've really misunderstood the analogy. I'm not arguing that we have moral responsibilities to oak trees. Even though an acorn is a potential oak tree it does not have the same properties as an actual oak tree. And even though a fetus is a potential person it doesn't have the same properties as an actual person. If I were to go into a wildlife reserve and cut down 1000 oak trees that would be a serious crime. However, eating 1000 acorns is not the equivalent to destroying oak trees even though an acorn is a potential tree. Do you get where I'm going with this? -->"My opponent wishes to discriminate against blastocysts because they don't have as many cells as we do." Now, this is getting a bit silly. You can't "discriminate" against something that doesn't have any rights. A blastocyst is comprised of a cluster of cells arranged in a sphere. [9]-[10] They are utterly incapable of having any conscious thoughts whatsoever. As I have shown earlier, 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. And this is simply an absurd outcome of my opponent's position. Consciousness establishes a right to life. ======= Conclusion ======= Throughout the course of this debate Mongeese has continuously confused biological directives with conscious desires and has failed to deliver any compelling argument of his own. Consciousness is necessary to hold a desire to live and without it an entity can't have a right to life. Furthermore, the arguments he has put forward can be shown to be fallacious. Potentials can't establish someone's right to vote any more than they can establish an unconscious being's right to life. Therefore, the outcome of this debate should be clear. (Vote Con) Sources: [1] http://www.reasonproject.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(author) [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...(biology) [5] http://departments.weber.edu... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://forums.timesdaily.com... [10] http://www.medterms.com... Side note: Follow the first link for sources [2] and [4]. They're acting strange. Good luck, Mongeese. :)