Abortion is Prima Facie Morally Wrong

Let me first begin by clarifying on what is meant by "prima facie," and stating a little more about my position. I did not take it to mean that it would be intuitively wrong. Instead, I meant that abortion is generally wrong. "Prima facie" means "at first glance" in Latin. When I stated that it was prima facie wrong to take a human life, all that was meant was at first appearance (Not to be confused with intuition) murder is wrong. I want to make it clear before I respond that I do believe that there are cases where abortion is justified (Ie: the life of the mother), the same with murder (ie: self-defense). This is not a concession, I am merely stating the way in which I used prima facie in order to correct misconception's that have already arisen. Now, regarding my opponent's five criteria, my goal is to demonstrate that these are not essential criteria for personhood. I will also argue that even if I do grant these criteria, nothing of significance arises. In fact, it harms my opponent's case more than it helps it. Let me begin with the latter. Suppose I concede that in order to be considered a human person, the unborn must have all five criteria listed by Con. What follows? Nothing of interest, because the unborn have these characteristics. As compared to a zombie (Which my opponent uses as a comparison), the unborn have intrinsic potentials that are geared toward the actualization of all five criteria. A zombie, by contrast, has lost its humanity and has none of these potentials intrinsic to itself (They are acted on by outside forces). The characteristics listed are all had by the unborn, they have simply not been adequately developed yet. Writes Beckwith: "The unborn's potential is intrinsic to its nature, something for which its parts act in concert to actualize. .. The unborn does not have a 'weak potential' for consciousness, it has a basic capacity for consciousness by nature. .. In contrast, the "weak potential" of a [zombie] is not an active, intrinsically directed potential it has by nature but is the sort of passive potential that all things have: a passive potential to be acted upon, shaped, and altered by extrinsic causes including agents. " [1] If my opponent retorts that these five criteria must be actualized in order for the unborn to be considered persons, then this generates numerous absurdities. For example, it would imply that some humans are more valuable than others by virtue of having actualized these potentials to a greater degree (Einstein vs. Atilla). But obviously we both know that this is absurd. Stephen Schwarz writes, "he is equally a person; he is the same person at his earlier stage of development as at the latter stages, or else it would not be his development. " [2] As I have stated in my OP, one's level of development is irrelevant to his status as a human being. The cognitive traits of a two year old are less developed than a twenty-year old, but we obviously hold them to be equal in value. Regarding the criteria for personhood, a much more robust view of human nature would be to say that personhood is not determined by what properties you have, but by what you _are_. Writes Robert Joyce, "Living beings come into existence all at once and then gradually unfold to themselves and to the world what they already, but only incipiently, _are_. [3] Similarly, Beckwith argues, "Because one can only develop certain functions by nature (i. e. , as a result of basic, intrinsic capacities) because of the sort of being one _is_, a human being, at every state of her development is _never_ a potential person; she is _always_ a person with potential even if that potential is never actualized due to premature death or the result of the absence of deformity of a physical state necessary to actualize that potential. " [4] _____________ See comments for sources