Abortion is Morally Permissible/Ethical

Introduction: Thank to Grape for continuing the debate and posting his arguments. I accept his clarification of the Resolution, and accept his explanation of ethics and morals as one side of a multifaceted concept. In Grape's introduction he mentions the legality of abortion numerous times. As this is not mentioned in the Resolution, I will assume that these statements are just part of Grapes standered opening comments. If infact Grape intended to discuss the legality of abortion, then I concede that abortion should be legal. Arguement 1: "One argument that has been used against abortion to the point of becoming ubiquitous in such debates is that there is little significant difference between the mental or physiological status of a fetus days prior to birth and an infant days after birth." While this arguement may be common, I attribute it's populairty to it's convincing arguement. While Grape takes the iniative to refute this point, I find his rational a bit lacking. For example, Grape proposes this analogy: "...the fact that it is illegal to drive while intoxicated does not support the resolution that driving is illegal. All actions can be can be subject to circumstance." I believe that for Grape to make the arguement that abortion is morally permisible because fetuses are not people defined by the criteria propsed by Mary Anne Warren. Thus a human must have "consciousness, rationality, self-motivation, the capacity to communicate, and self-concepts." However as previously stated by Grape, it is the Cons position that the concious and meaningful difference between a fetus and a very young infant are negligable. Therefore by saying that abortion is morally permissable, so is infanticide. And while Grape proposes this analogy to refute that connection, it is the Con's position that this analogy is lacking. The major point made by Grape is that there is a clear and distinct difference between fetuses and humans. His analogy by contrast makes no differentiation between the two events. As I have understood his analogy, (And I may have interpreted incorrectly.) he is saying that while killing a baby might be illegal, circumstances (Such as the object being murdered is a fetus as opposed to a devolped human) make certain actions legal. But since both fetuses and young infants fall into the same group as defined by Grape's terms, killing either a fetus or young infant should not be treated differently legally or morally. To apply mathmatical logic, Grape's position is that it is ethical to abort a fetus. Since very young infants also fail to meet Grape's proposed burden for defining sentient humans, they are equivelent to fetuses and animals. Since it's morally acceptable to abort a fetus, and young infants are equivelent to fetuses, the logical interpretation of Grape's position is that he/she supports the abortion of both fetuses and very young infants. While this may the logical conclusion to Grape's position, I would guess (Correct me if I'm mistaken Grape) that Grape does not condone the killing of infants. Infanticide, regardless of motivation, is seen as morally reprehensible by society. Under Grape's criteria however fetuses and young infants both fail to meet the proposed burden and therefore fall into the same group as animals. Arguement 2: Grape's proposed burden for the definition of a sentient being is very good, and I accept it as the criteria to be used throuhout the debate. Under those criteria, fetuses do not count as human beings and therefore are not eligible to be taken into account in his/her definition of ethics. Society however routinely treats these non sentient beings as potential for human life. In fact, much of our political policy is dedicated to preserving the happiness and freedom of these future generations. Pundits on both sides of the political spectrum argue that the National Debt should be reduced so it's not passed onto future generations. Much of our enviormental policy is shaped by the beilef that we must preserve the earth for future children. Grape's proposed ethics then suggest that current humans, to be as ethical as possible, should increase the happiness of only living sentient adults. Thus to increase social mobility and economic freedom, we should overfish fisheries to lower seafood prices, stop pursuing alternative energies and only focus on keeping gas prices low, overfarm land to end world hunger. Obviouslly these actions are morally ireprhensible, but Grape has proposed that future generations, as they are unborn and non-sentient are not deserving of considertion in our ethics. Thus I propose the follwoing question: If the unborn and non-sentient beings are not deserving of our ethical considerations, then why not attempt to make ever sentient devolped adult in the world as happy and free as possible? By Grape's definition of ethics, this exploitation of our resources with no consideration of futer generations, is the most ethical thing we can do.