Abortion Should Be Legal

Unfortunately due to some technical issues, I am not able to write a proper case for this argument. I have solved this problem but sadly only in time to post a response to my opponents arguments. To be fair to my opponent, I will not just rely to disproving the arguments made by my opponent rather than writing a case in the third round. Before I begin, I would just like to say that I am arguing that aborting in most cases should be illegal. The exception to this being in cases such as rape and threat to mothers life. Biology While I agree that a fetus is not a person, I do believe that they still have a right to life. To begin, I will start by offering two definitions of a human being. Biological: The definition of "Human being in the biological sense only means an organism with the right set of DNA to be classified as a Homo Sapiens. "Human". Moral: Individuals with rights, deserve respect, and have intrinsic value. "Person". To be considered a person according to an abortion activists and author Mary Anne Warren, there are several characteristics that are central to our concept of personhood. Consciousness of things (intentionality) Capacity of feel pain (qualia) Reasoning Self motivated activity (choosing to perform an activity independent of our instincts) Communication with arbitrary complexity Self-Concept She argues that if something lacks all the above characteristics, then there is no reason to believe that it is a person. If it only lacks one of these characteristics, there is an argument to be made that the entity is a person. Because fetuses lack most if not all of these characteristics, many Pro choice activists tend to argue that the fetus does not have any right whatsoever. The mistake here is that these pro choice activists tend to mistake rights for duties. Don marquis sheds some light on this topic in his writing "Why abortion is immoral". Rights: he argues that you do not need psychological characteristics to have rights. He uses the severely disabled as an example. A severely mental disabled still have rights even though they do not have the psychological characteristics. You will violate their rights if you take away something from them or even if you abuse them. Duties: He argues that your duty depends on you ability to recognize someone else's rights and act accordingly. New born babies do not have any duty because they do not recognize rights. This means that psychological characteristics are necessary to have duties. Using this standard, taking away the fetuses life or even a chance of life is an invasion of the fetuses rights. To kill a fetuse if to rob the fetus of a future like ours. Marquis uses this conclusion to support his position on abortion. He explains that it is immoral to kill anything that has such a valuable future; a future like ours. ( Value is brought on by the smallest things that makes life worth living. This satisfaction does not require that they roll in wealth. ) Choice: Mary Anne Warren argues that in the moment when you knowing engage in a sexual act; then you have given consent for the fetus to use your body. To respond to the type of care that the woman might be able to give to the child once conceived, I refer my opponent back to an earlier statement of mine. Value is brought on by the smallest things that makes life worth living. This satisfaction does not require that they roll in wealth. This means that the smallest thing is cause enough to lead a happy life. The smallest interaction, the smallest and mildest experiences is all that is needed to lead a valuable life. For instance, in many third world countries, children are exposed to atmospheres that we consider to be subpar environments to raise a child. This conclusion is not reason to although to believe that these children do have a valuable life and it is certainly not reason enough to take away their right to life.