Abortion is Generally Immoral

Once again, this is the argument I have defended:1. The unborn entity, from fertilization, is a full-fledged member of the human community.2. It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong. I believe I have successfully upheld this argument as valid and sound. I will respond to Con's final points here. Premise 1The fact that human embryos grow are not evidence of their humanity, just that they are alive. One way scientists can tell if something is alive is if they are growing. The evidence for their humanity that I gave in round two are that they are the product of human parents, and they have human DNA (which we can differentiate from the DNA of other creatures). As I have indicated, we should not confuse parts with wholes. A human cell has human DNA that it shares with the parent organism, but this does not grant a human cell a right to life. Being human is a sufficient condition, but not a necessary one for a right to life. From fertilization, we are whole, distinct, living human organisms. Each part of the organism works for the good of the whole, which is not true of each individual part. So it is not the same to say my arm has human DNA, therefore it has a right to life. The whole organism has a right to life based on fulfilling the sufficient condition of being human. So killing a human organism is wrong, but cutting your hair or otherwise removing an individual cell is not. Con is correct in that trees and other animal organism are alive. This is not disputed, as one way we can tell something is alive is if it grows. The reason we do not consider trees inherently valuable like humans further goes to support my case. The reason humans are valuable is because of our inherent capacity as rational, moral agents. Being rational, moral agents is an essential property of humans for without it, we would cease to be human at all. The human is both a rational and a moral being. Without a moral nature there would be no true humanity, so those who would abolish the moral law would abolish humanity in the bargain. [1] As C. S. Lewis writes, "Either we are rational spirit obliged for ever to obey the absolute values of the Tao, or else we are mere nature to be kneaded and cut into new shapes for the pleasure masters who must, by hypothesis, have no motive but their own 'natural' impulses. Only the Tao provides a common human law of action which can over-arch rulers and ruled alike. A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery. " [2]It's the inherent capacity to fulfill these functions that make us valuable, not the presently exercisable ability to fulfill them, that makes us valuable, otherwise it would not be humans that are valuable but the function itself. That would mean it would be morally justifiable to kill a human to bring about two humans who can fulfill those functions. Plus, whenever we lose the ability to perform that function (such as when we fall asleep or enter a reversible coma) it would be morally justifiable to kill that person for any reason. Thus, human embryos and fetuses are inherently valuable, as we are, because of their inherent capacity to fulfill these functions. In fact, Con believes it is consciousness that makes humans valuable, which means that he still has biases against creatures that can't be conscious in the same way we are (such as insects). So pro-life advocates are not being inconsistent. It is not inconsistent to hold all humans valuable because they all have the same inherent capacities, but not to hold other creatures as valuable that don't have the same inherent capacities. They are being perfectly consistent. Con's CaseC1The pro-life case is not that we are valuable because we are humans. After all, religious pro-lifers would also hold that God and angels are inherently valuable. Additionally, extraterrestrials (such as Klingons and Vulcans) would also be inherently valuable, as we are, because they share a similar nature (the inherent capacity as rational, moral agents). As I said, being human is a sufficient, not a necessary, condition for a right to life. I have already explained why it can't possibly be the immediately exercisable capacity for fulfilling a function (such as consciousness) that makes us valuable (it would be morally justifiable to kill someone every time they lost consciousness, and it would be consciousness itself, not the human, that is valuable). However, you can harm someone without them being aware of it. The philosophical definition of harm is "to leave someone worse off. " So if you cut someone's leg off, you are harming them. But if a doctor amputates someone's leg to prevent gangrene from setting in, the person has not been harmed. The doctor would have harmed the person by not amputating the leg. There was a drug in the 50's and 60's called thalidomide that eased morning sickness in pregnant women, but it was later discovered that it causes children to be born without arms and legs. If Con is correct, that one cannot be harmed if they are not aware of it, then he would have to admit that a fetus is not harmed in the womb, but the child is only harmed when they first become aware of what arms and legs are and that they should have been born with them. But this is counterintuitive. If you kill someone in their sleep, they are still harmed despite not knowing that you are killing them. And a child who is never told about their inheritance is still harmed even if they never know that they had one, because you are still leaving them worse off without the inheritance. Con also mentions experience. Frank Beckwith uses an example of Uncle Jed. Say your Uncle Jed is in a terrible accident and suffers severe brain damage. All of his past experiences and memories are gone so that he will have to re-learn everything. He touches a hot stove and learns it will burn him all over again, and he will be in a coma for nine months. He is essentially like a fetus. Under Con's definition, it would be morally justifiable to kill him because not only is he unconscious, all of his experiences and memories are gone. [3]Also, the pro-life position is not inconsistent. The very case made is that you need a morally justifiable reason to kill someone. "To produce more life later" is not a morally justifiable reason to kill someone. C2First, Con is absolutely correct. I did not mean murder, but homicide (of which abortion counts). A hard situation does not justify homicide, so my objection that his arguments are an appeal to pity stand. They are definitely hard situation and we should help these women and families out of these situations, but homicide is not an appropriate solution (as I have shown last round). C3To kill someone rather than allow them to live is the very definition of "harm. " If someone is in a hard situation, the solution is not to kill them but to improve their situation. We do not kill a two-year-old child with abusive parents, we take her out of the home and try to find a better home for her. As such, abortion is not justified to prevent a child from growing up in a possibly bad situation. I have supported my case with science and philosophy, and the objections here raised simply do not justify abortion. Once again, I thank Con for taking the time to debate this with me. [1] Lewis, C. S. , The Abolition of Man, p. 77. [2] ibid. , pp. 84-85[3] Beckwith, Francis J. , Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, p. 137.