Abortion is Generally Immoral

Note: In my definiton of "abortion," the word "zygote" should be replaced with "gamete," as I rushed through and forgot the fact that the zygote is not formed until the fusion of male and female gametes (sperm and egg.) I should have known better.Pro Case:First, I will admit that the logic of my opponent's syllogism appears to be valid. With that being said, I shall examine and criticize, where it is neccessary, the truth value of specific premises within that syllogism.Premise 1: "The unborn entity, from fertilization, is a full-fledged member of the human community."In the first place, I will again point out that my opponent's biological evidence for this premise is valid. The embryologists and other experts he quotes are correct, I think, when they determine that biological life begins with conception. I also agree that, genetically, human means the same thing from conception to death.That, however, is where I end my endorsement of the truth-value of my opponent's premise.To begin with, asides from the fact that I don't personally subscribe to the notion of "common sense," the statement that "non-living" things don't grow is not necessarily true. Most current scientific evidence strongly suggests that the Universe itself has grown from nothing into something. It continues to expand to this day. [1]I also disagree with the idea that the pro-life position is the only consistent one, simply because the pro-choice position makes distinctions about where "human life" actually begins. This, in the first place, is an argument from the beard (related to the Heap Paradox), which fallaciously claims that we can make no useful distinctions along a spectrum. I will demonstrate in my own case that in these situations, we can. This will center on what exactly constitutes a "full-fledged" member of humanity, which I have an alternate interpretation of.Premise 2: "It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community."It is, at first impression, morally wrong to kill any member of the human community, I agree. However, in my own case I will demonstrate that an unborn fetus (and particularly embryos and zygotes) does not yet qualify as a member of that community (mostly in my own first contention.)Premise 3: "Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community."Every successful abortion does biologically kill a genetic member of the species Homo Sapiens, but not necessarily a full-fledged member of the human community.Premise 4: "Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong."While I do think that most abortions can and should be avoided, and do think that they should be done as early as possible, I believe my own case will prove exceptions to my opponent's conclusion that every one is morally wrong, and thus will disprove it.Con Case:C1: Humanity is Defined by Consciousness.Premise 1: Cogito ergo Sum. "I think, therefore I am."All true members of the human community are not defined by their genetic blueprint, or even their biological capacity for growth, but by their neurological capacity for consciousness.Premise 2: This capacity for consciousness is not developed until, at least, the 24-28th weeks of gestation. [2]Premise 3: All legal abortions within the U.S. are performed before the 20th week of gestation. [3]Conclusion: Therefore, legal abortions within the U.S. do not harm any pre-existing consciousness, and thus do not kill any full-fledged members of the human community.C2: Neurological Consciousness takes Moral Precedent over Biological Life.Since I define a true member of the human community as one that is functionally conscious, I take the position that such existing members take moral precedent over merely potentially conscious non-members. In other words, post-born, neurologically-conscious human beings take moral precedent over pre-born, biologically-living organisms whose neurological potential has not yet been realized.To make this case, consider some of the statistics of those who do receive many, if not most, legal abortions. Consider these:"Nearly half of pregnancies among American women—more than three million each year—are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion." [4]-This demonstrates that roughly 20% of the pregnancies that would be realized by illegalizing abortion would result in births of children to mothers who not only never intended to have them, but could not care for them or did not want them."About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children." [4]-This demonstrates that most women who elect to have an abortion are doing it to protect their already existing children from the economic and attentional disparities that would result in having another."Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children; $22,050 for a family of four). Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level." [4]-This demonstrates than many, if not most, women who elect to have abortions do so because they do not have the necessary, not to say sufficient, means to care for the new child.Taking these into consideration, we can conclude to prevent abortion on the basis of immorality would result in the birth of many (more) children to mothers who do not have the attitudinal, attentional, temporal, and economic resources to care for them. Therefore, we can see that, given these conditions, the rational solution is to allow abortions to persist as an option in order to protect the existing and potential consciousness of humans from a multitude of struggles and injuries in life. Therefore, abortion is, in at least some cases, moral.C3: An Ideal Environment is More Important than Genetic Uniqueness.My opponent also alludes to the uniqueness of the human individual. I contest that although it is true that each is genetically unique, this in itself doesn't carry much weight, ironically because it is true. Each potential human being is just as unique as any other, because uniqueness is an absolute condition. So any possible combination of say, a single female gamete with any single male gamete within the ejaculate that fertilizes it is no way more unique or valuable than any other (excluding the health of the chromosomes.) Thus the uniqeness of a potential child is not as important as the environment they are raised in, in terms of quality of life, and therefore abortion acts as a rational safe-guard against any equally-unique human children being raised in less than ideal environmental conditions. Therefore, abortions can again be considered moral in terms of existential conditions.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.klab.caltech.edu...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://www.guttmacher.org...