Abortion ought to be legal in the United States.

Hello :) I just wanted to take up the position that you were debating against, since I think my side has a somewhat better defence than was given. I think that most participants in the debate can agree that people ought not be wantonly killed. Thus, the question that seems most fundamental to the debate is "when does personhood begin"? After all, it is only personhood that matters - not "life" (As there are a great many things that are alive that most people have little qualms about destroying, since those things are not persons). You attempt to address this by introducing several arguments: 1. Potential ought to be equated with actualisation of that potential 2. Conception, being the point of origination for all humans, ought to be regarded as sacred. The problem with both of these arguments stems from the assumption that the potential for a thing to develop automatically means that such a thing ought to be given the rights of its fully-developed self. We can demonstrate the folly in this thinking in several ways: A) We can regress further and further back to demonstrate the absurdity of the "potentiality" argument. Given the right conditions, it is fair to say that a zygote will develop into a human. By your argument, we ought to then afford this zygote with all the rights of a fully-formed human. But is it not the case that, given the correct conditions, a sperm will develop into a human? The conditions are obviously different, but if it is given the proper tools (in the case of a sperm, an egg is required; in the case of a zygote, various nutrients are required) then it too will develop into a human. In fact, the sperm and the egg can be said to be the "origins of humanity"; they contain the genetic information that is essential to the development of an actual human. Without them, no zygote could ever develop, and thus no person could ever develop. We've defined "personhood" now to mean "potential for becoming a human", which both a sperm and an egg clearly meet, since they both the first and necessary steps for the creation of a human being. What are the implications of this view? One is that most women are quite murderous - every time they choose not to have a child when they are capable, since an egg is a person, we can say that they are murdering that person. Men, however, are guilty of a great sin, for millions upon millions of sperm are typically lost every single day; men, we can say, are commiting a veritable genocide against humanity! Ought we, then, set up an international tribunal (such as the ones held in Nuremberg) in order to bring this gender to justice? Obviously this line of thinking is absolutely absurd. But why is it absurd? If you are to be believed, then without the sperm (the "acorn"), we'll never develop into the oak tree and thus the sperm is a person that must be protected. The logic seems appealing enough when we're dealing with zygotes, but very few are willing to take it to its necessary conclusion, so why is this? This is because we recognise that moral personhood does not simply begin at life. Suppose there is a student and his professor. In order to get a 100% on some specific assignment that will determine the mark for the whole course, the professor states that all a student must do is read the poem "Mary Had a Little Lamb". Suppose further that this student decides to refuse to read that poem, and thus the student receives a 0% in the course. The student may attempt to go up to his professor and say "But you know that I can read - I clearly had the potential for completing this assignment! Is that not the same as actually completing it?". Very few people would fault the professor is he found this argument uncompelling One final example: Suppose that I have before me some tomatoes, zucchini, frozen meat, cheese, noodles, and various other ingredients. Suppose further that I have been tasked with cooking the meal at a prestigious dinner. The guests show up, but there is no meal to be had. Will I be able to argue that all of the ingredients have the *potential* to become lasagna and thus they should consider the meal served? Of course not. The ingredients may someday become lasagna, if given the right conditions (namely, my skill and interference), but until that point they are merely ingredients on a table - they are definitely not lasagna, and should not be treated as such. Potential is just that - potential. I have the potential of one day becoming the President of the United States. Does this mean we should simply consider me to be the President? Obviously not. You ask the question of what the difference is between us and our potential. That difference is reality: If we accept the notion that a thing must not only be alive but must be a person in order to receive full moral rights (a reasonable notion - we do not afford cows or bacteria the same moral rights that we give to a human), then we have established a criterion for those moral rights. Thus, the ONLY test that is relevant when determining whether a thing has those rights is whether they meet the criterion - it is NOT whether they might, someday in the future, meet that criterion. We need a definition of personhood to go further. I do not have enough space to give a detailed definition, so let us provisionally use this definition (which you may challenge later): A person is that entity (note that it is not restricted to homo sapiens) which possesses such a significant capability for analysis of information that it has become self-aware, has formed a personal identity, is capable of thinking in normative terms, is capable of making informed choices, and is capable of significant abstract thought. Some might criticise this definition as excluding the mentally deficient or small children, but this comes from an underestimation of the mental capacities of these groups of people and thus the definition does not run into that problem. Thus, when we look at the zygote, we must ask ourselves if it meets the criteria for personhood. Is it self-aware? No! The zygote is not capable of such high-level mental thought. Does it have a personal identity (Is it thinking "I'm me!" while in the womb?). Certainly not. Can it think in normative terms - can it classify things into "good" and "bad"? Since it cannot think in any significant way, we must answer "no". Can it make informed choices? It cannot be informed and it cannot make choices, so no, it is not capable of this. Is it capable of significant abstract thought? Once again, no. Will it someday develop into a thing that meets these requirements? Sure. When it does, then we can afford it with moral rights, and if we want to create an entity that is a person then we ought to protect this zygote notwithstanding its lack of personhood. But it is not a person RIGHT NOW, and thus we cannot afford it with the rights of a person RIGHT NOW, since it does not meet our criteria for giving it moral rights RIGHT NOW. This is also why we would never extend such protections to a sperm. Is a sperm self aware? Does a sperm have personal identity? Can it think in normative terms? Make informed choices? Capable of significant abstract thought? The answer to all of these is "no". Will it someday develop into a thing that meets these requirements? Sure. When it does, then we can afford it with moral rights. We can debate whether various stages of development meet the requirements for personhood or not, but ultimately it seems clear that personhood does not begin at conception. You may still make an argument based on the idea that the zygote is owned by the whole of society and thus if any one person objects then abortion cannot be allowed (though this would be a bizarre argument to make), but if my analysis is correct then you cannot continue to negate allowing abortion in the abstract on the basis of the "right to life" of the zygote. I look forward to your response!