Abortion Is Good For Society

I would like to begin by affirming the emotional sensitivity of this topic. My hope is to have a respectful and constructive discussion without offending either side. My opponent is making a positive claim and therefore assumes burden of proof. Specific claims that Pro made which require proof are: a fetus is not alive, a fetus is not human, human life begins at birth, a fetus cannot feel anything, human life is defined by an organism that can locomote, think, reproduce, have emotions, and communicate, etc... I will focus on Pro's claims about the nature of life and the status of a fetus. At the end, I will expose some inconsistencies with my opponent's list of when abortion is justified/unjustified. Before we consider what human life is, we must first examine the characteristics of life in general. I will examine multiple different definitions of life across numerous disciplines and determine if an unborn child can be included within each definition. I will start with the dictionary. Two definitions of life according the Merriam-Webster dictionary are: 1) The ability to grow, change, etc., that separates plants and animals from things like water or rocks 2) An organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction Starting with the first definition, we must ask if an embryo has the ability to grow and change. The answer is undoubtedly yes. Pregnancy tests cannot detect a pregnancy until week 4 or later. By this time, a fertilized egg has already implanted in the uterus and is dividing cells. At the very earliest moment a woman can know she's pregnant, a fertilized egg has already begun to grow and change. Therefore, it fits our first definition of life. For definition number two, does an unborn child possess the capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction? Yes. An unborn child can absorb and metabolize nutrients, they grow, they can detect light, sound, and touch stimuli while in the womb (a fetus actually CAN feel). While they obviously cannot reproduce, they begin developing sex organs within a few weeks and females produce eggs during week 16. They are growing the capability to reproduce, which will not be fully actualized until puberty. Once again, an unborn child seems to fit into the definition of life. Let's move on to other categorical definitions. Medically, life is defined as "The energy that enables organisms to grow, reproduce, absorb and use nutrients, and evolve... [1]." Do the unborn possess this energy? Yes. What about in the realm of astrophysics? Astronomers find it more difficult to define life because they must consider its possible existence in unknown conditions. However, we do have some attempts. Astrobiologist Benton Clark of the University of Colorado proposes that life involves three factors: "Life reproduces, and life uses energy. These functions follow a set of instructions embedded within the organism [2]." The "set of instructions" Clark refers to is DNA or something similar. NASA observes that life as we know it on earth tends to be complex, absorbs energy from its environment, synthesizes absorbed energy into growth and reproductive capability, and reacts to stimuli [3]. Once again, unborn embryos/fetuses meet each one of these characteristics in some capacity. While they cannot reproduce themselves, they eventually will be able to if allowed to reach puberty. They absorb energy from their environment (the mother) and synthesize that energy into growth. They possess DNA, and they react to stimuli. I submit, therefore, that the unborn meet this definition of life as well. Therefore, according to numerous definitions the unborn are living things. This refutes Pro's ridiculous claim that a fetus is not a living thing. Now we must take it one step further and ask if it's a human life? There are biological and philosophical considerations that can help us answer this question. Biologically, humans have 46 chromosomes with DNA specific to the Homo Sapiens species. All 46 chromosomes, as well as the human specific DNA that comes with them, are present in the zygote the moment fertilization occurs. According to the book Human Embryology & Teratology, "fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. [4]" Even if an abortion happens immediately after pregnancy can first be confirmed (4 weeks), the embryo has already begun developing a brain, spinal cord, and heart. By week 6, the arms, legs, eyes, and bones develop. The heart also begins beating [5]. These are all distinctly human features. The brain and spine of a fetus do not belong to some separate, sub-human species. They are genetically fully Homo Sapien - just at an early stage of development. Philosophically, in order to identify an embryo as "non-human," there must logically then be some point at which that organism does become fully human. This distinction is very difficult to make unless you draw it at the moment of birth. But even drawing the line at birth presents philosophical problems. Is a baby really not fully human until the second it leaves the womb? How about 30 seconds before? 3 hours? 3 days? What about after leaving the womb but before the umbilical cord is cut (since the baby is still attached to the mother)? What about after the cord is cut, since the baby is still completely dependent on others for survival and its brain is still not developed? I am interested to hear my opponent prove that a baby is somehow non-human 30 seconds before birth. Let's look at my opponent's definition of human life: an organism that can locomote, think, reproduce, have emotions, and communicate: Locomote means to move around - so is a paralyzed person not human? Can my opponent prove that a fetus cannot think? It's well known that a fetus can recognize voices while in the womb and there is strong evidence that a fetus has dreams too. A fetus cannot reproduce, but neither can a 3 year old. Is a 3 year old not human? Does a fetus have emotions? I don't know, but if they don't then a 1 hour old baby probably doesn't yet either - so is that 1 hour old baby not human? A fetus cannot communicate - but neither can an unconscious adult. Does that adult lose their humanity until they regain consciousness? Finally, Pro says that abortion is completely a mother's choice. Yet, Pro believes it's wrong to get an abortion if a woman decides she cannot financially support the child, or if she decides she wants to avoid responsibility. This is logically inconsistent - how can abortion be totally a mother's choice, yet she is wrong if she choses to get an abortion for these reasons? What makes it wrong? I look forward to Pro's explanations. [1] Mosby"s Medical Dictionary (8th Edition, Elsevier, 2009). [2] http://www.astrobio.net............ [3] http://www.nasa.gov............'s_working_definition.html [4] O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 8-29 [5] http://www.nlm.nih.gov............