Abortion is Murder

Human being have the right to lifePro claims "Con’s life is automatically protected by the law for the simple fact that he is a human being". This is irrelevant to the debate because we are debating the morality of abortion prior to law. If we took the law as evidence for the morality of an action, I could simply point out that the vast majority of developed countries permit abortion. He says that my thought experiment which asks us to conceive a race of aliens who are persons, and then consider whether we would extend rights to them, is irrelevant because they aren't real. Well of course not: it's a thought experiment! I gave two examples: the first was an anencephalic baby and the second was a race of alien persons. Pro gives a single example of an anencephalic baby who responds to stimuli. Note what he is doing here - he is not appealing to the fact that the baby is a human being, but rather that the baby shows signs of cognitive development. "A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain. Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a rudimentary brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness". [1] In addition: "Reflex actions such as breathing and responses to sound or touch may occur" - which may explain the article Pro cites. Since most anencephalic babies cannot feel pain, the reason they can be euthanised is not to relieve their suffering - they are not conscious beings that feel suffering. Pro's conclusion, that human life is what is valuable, is unsustainable. The fact is that anencephalic babies are human beings, yet there is clearly no point to sustaining their lives longer than necessary. Combine this with the fact that if we encountered a race of alien persons (I'm not saying we have - obviously), we would plausibly extend rights to them, and we have a compelling case for the claim that personhood is what separates things which have a right to life, and things which do not. Personhood1. I would like to remind voters that the resolution of this debate was not "Late Term Abortion is Murder" - Pro cannot move the goalposts like that. Pro is defending the position that abortion is murder from the moment of conception. An early developing embryo does not even have a brain. There is no possibility that it meets any of the criteria of personhood listed. Perhaps a late fetus does have some of the characteristics and we could plausibly extend rights to them. I'm willing to concede that possibility. But if an early developing embryo does not have a right to life, the resolution is negated. 2a. Pro distinguishes between a potential human that is alive and developing, and one that is not. I would ask one question - so what? What is the relevant ethical difference that is supposed to be being pointed out here? In neither case are they persons, and I have argued elsewhere that persons do not have a right to life. b. The point is that we do not regard the lack of coming into existence of potential persons as a tragedy. I can easily concede that passive murder is not murder - but we hardly think that the failure to come into existence of potential persons is the same as passively allowing people to die. If I fail to have sex to bring into existence 10 people, that isn't the same as standing by while 10 people on a boat drown. Neither case might be murder, but they are clearly not the same. 3. I was bringing a separate moral claim to bear. There can be cases where even the killing of a non-person is clearly morally impermissible. For example, if giving an abortion to a women would have the consequence that she committed suicide. It isn't because the embryo has a right to life. There is a separate consideration to consider. In the case of someone who is in a coma, they have already lived as a person for some time and presumably would like that life to continue after they have come out of their coma. That is the consideration I'm appealing to.It is true that I don't think there is any relevant moral difference between being out of the womb or being in the womb. If the premature infant has none of the characteristics of a person, I do not think it has a right to life. As I understand, the chances of a premature infant born at 20 weeks surviving, or surviving without major brain defects, are virtually 0% in any case - so this is hardly a compelling example. 4. I gave reasons to think that personhood is the relevant moral characteristic which is necessary to grant something rights, yet Pro acts as though I just arbitrarily picked them without reason. People disagree over the issue - that's why I said murder is a 'fuzzy' concept. That fact alone does nothing to show that I am wrong. What Abortion Really IsI don't really see an argument here. There are allusions to the Nazis and claims about the personal motivations of Pro-choicers. The former is, as I have pointed out, an example of the guilt by association fallacy - which Pro does not even contest. The latter is an apparent exercise in mind reading on the part of Pro and has no bearing on this debate. Pro-Choice I do think we should take measures to reduce the number of abortions. The reasons are not because I think that a developing embryo/fetus has a right to life (though perhaps it is arguable in the case of a late term fetus) but for different considerations. Having an abortion may have a psychological affect on the mother, and there are risks to the physical health of the mother. Also, abortions are costly - much better to keep teenagers aware of, and aware of how to use, contraception and to educate them about sex to reduce the number of early pregnancies. Note that this has not bearing on the resolution - even if these are negative consequences of abortion, we are specifically debating whether abortion is murder. ConclusionHas Pro met his burden of proof? Has he shown that abortion is murder? He claimed that merely being a human being is enough to guarantee one the right to life, but I gave two reasons to doubt this. The first was the example of anencephalic babies who are human beings yet do not have a right to life. The second was the example of alien persons to whom we would plausibly extend rights yet are not human beings. These two examples suggest that the relevant characteristic to consider when deciding whether something has rights is personhood. There were multiple other issues brought up in the debate, and the voters will have to decide who came out on top overall. Thanks for the debate![1] http://www.ninds.nih.gov...