Abortion is Generally Immoral.

Thanks for a great debate, Pro; you worked me hard. :) (I was out of time and way over character-count, which is why I cut your quotes so much. Sorry. ) Premise 1: From fertilization, the preborn are biological members of humanity. the benefit of the doubt should still go to life. If a hunter hears a rustling in the bushes, he won't immediately fire because it could be a human and not a deer. How many hunters would hesitate for fear of hitting a zygote? saying the preborn are living human beings is an objective reality. Zygotes are human, and they be. If that made them human beings, then sperm cells would count too. And eyelashes. But Spock would not count. I have even shown that the experts in the field, the embryologists, support the life and humanity of the preborn. You misrepresented your experts as saying that life begins at conception. Why? I think you're uncomfortable with your own test. Zygotes are alive and human, but so are sperm cells. Worf and Data (Star Treck characters), if they existed, would not be human but they would be every bit as valuable and deserving as human persons. Your brain-dead guy is alive and human too, but you're willing to off him. It is obvious that your proposed test (is it alive and human? ) doesn't work even for you. … a zygote is created through a consensual act by two people. Consent doesn't come into it. You wouldn't let someone kill a toddler who was a product of rape. Here, also, Con is guilty of equivocating. He uses "human" to mean two different things You're say zygotes are human beings because they are human and they be. I'm just pointing out that, according to that logic, sperm and cancer cells are human beings too. You are claim that a zygote is a "full human being" when it may yet twin. And you don't count "brain-dead guy" even though he obviously is a human being. I'm not the one equivocating. Premise 2: All members of humanity are intrinsically valuable based on the kind of thing they are, humans. I'm not entirely sure what Con means by intrinsic value being a linguistic impossibility. … happiness is intrinsically valuable because it is valuable in and of itself. It's valuable because we like it. humans are intrinsically valuable because they have value regardless of whether anyone else values them. If nobody values something, then, by definition, it has no value. We do value people, but not because of their species. … it would be equally wrong to kill a homeless person Yes, because murder makes people unhappy. Homeless people count because they are people. Homeless brain-dead humans don't count any more than homeless zygote humans. If it were shown that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy, I would still believe them to have the same intrinsic value as humanity. Then why do labor the humanity of zygotes? The issue is whether they are people. Spock is a person. Homeless people are people. Zygotes are not people. I would afford Mr. Spock (a Vulcan) the same value and right to life as I would a human being because he belongs to a species like humans, a sentient species. Listen to yourself! Spock would be fair game if he were one-of-a-kind? No, this has nothing to do with whether he has a species. When it comes to super-intelligent animals or artificial intelligences, I really believe those to be more fantasy than reality (I'm dubious as to whether a robot or android could ever really attain sentience), but even if they did, it would be taken on a case-by-case basis. If they were shown to be like humans, then I believe they would deserve the same protection as humans. Like humans in what ways? This is the crux of our disagreement. If an alien or animal or computer program could be shown to be like a professor, plumber, Bedouin, child, or homeless guy, then, sure, protect him. But if it's just like a zygote or brain-dead guy, then what would be the point? … constantly referring to the zygote seems irrelevant to me because we don't kill zygotes. You wrote the resolution. You staked out the position you wanted to defend. If you no longer think aborting zygotes is immoral, you may concede. killing a preborn child is much different from killing a braindead patient. The braindead patient is not the person he once was. [Emphasis added. ] He's not a person. Exactly. The braindead patient is essentially dead, By my test, he is dead, because he's no longer a person. By your test, he's a human being, as intrinsically valuable as any other human being. This is different from a zygote which is on the natural path of human … sentience … will develop. By that logic, you must oppose coitus interruptus, and protect gametes on the natural path to merging. The braindead patient has no future whereas the zygote does. What happened to "intrinsic value"? Zygotes do benefit from protection because then they can grow into productive members of society and live. Then sperm and eggs deserve the same protection. It would be wrong to just give up on Coma Guy because he has a good chance of coming out of his coma and living. Right, he's a person. The zygote was never a person. It has no hopes to be disappointed, no fear of death, no preference for living. There's no reason to pretend he's like a comatose person. We don't have the right to kill people just because they're inconvenient for us to have around. [emphasis added] Zygotes aren't people. Abortion is not about reproductive choice. Certainly it is. Reproductive choice would be choosing not to have sex with your partner because you can't afford a child right now. Why should we do that? Sex is good; it makes us happy, and you've stipulated that happiness is good. We should have sex a lot. Your effective claim is that a zygote is more of a human being than brain-dead guy. That can't work out for you. Premise 3: It is prima facie wrong to kill an innocent human being. Premise 4: Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. Since we've established that it would be equally immoral to kill certain non-humans, we know that humanity isn't the issue. And, since we aren't asking whether Worf and brain-dead guy are guilty, we know that innocence isn't the issue either. Classing the preborn as humans would not negate the presumption that killing humans is wrong. You don't strengthen a rule by applying it to unrelated stuff. Do you really want people thinking murder is no worse than abortion? … it should be up to the individual (e. g. the zygote) if it wants to continue living, What was it you said about artificial intelligence and super-intelligent animals? Ah, "more fantasy than reality … but even if they did [attain sentience] it would be taken on a case-by-case basis. " Great! We're in agreement: Zygotes-with-desires are fantasy, not reality; but if you show me sentient zygotes, then we can take it on a case-by-case basis. but humans believe they should be able to make life-or-death decisions for someone lesser than themselves. We must do so for our pets, as is altogether fitting and proper. Obviously a zygote cannot tell us it wants to live, but it should be assumed. Assume a lie? Killing a zygote is wrong not just because it's human, We've established that humanity is not the test. For anything except zygotes (alien, artificial intelligence, super-intelligent animal, or brain-dead human) the test is always whether it is a person. (As you phrase the test, it is whether they have sentience. I think that's less accurate and useful, but I'm not prepared to split hairs unless you think the difference is important. ) Having a separate test for zygotes is special pleading, a fallacy. Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is generally immoral. There's simply no reason to think this. Pro has the burden of proof, but he cannot make his case.