Abortion is Wrong

First, I want to know why the burden of proof lies on the one who is trying to save lives, as if he needs justification, while the one advocating the murder of lives needs none. I'm not sure you're correct in saying I am shifting the burden of proof when in fact I'm only making it clear who it lies upon. If you agree with me that the unborn is human, and YOU need reason for killing the child, why do I carry the burden of proof? If we had another round to argue this, I'd keep going, but we don't, so I'll move on. Before I start, I just wanted to point to you your lack of argument- nothing you said gave me a reason why ending the life of the unborn human being is morally acceptable- that proposes many problems for you. I've heard this argument before: Yes, the fetus is human, but just because it's human doesn't mean it's valuable, and without value, we can kill it at our leisure (whether that's financial reasons, age reasons, relationship reasons etc.). I, however, argue that because we have value now (if you want to argue if humans have value after birth you should look for a new debate) we had value in the womb, and if we had intrinsic value in the womb, there is no good reason to end the life. (Unless the mother's life is in danger.) My personal belief in man's intrinsic value is derived from my religious background, but there is an excellent philosophical argument that bolsters this position without the use of Bible verses; it's called the Substance Argument. It's claim is this: A human is a substance (something living that retains its identity through time and change) as opposed to a property thing (something that's not living and can have its identity changed by time or change); therefore the human being that has intrinsic value now, had the same intrinsic value as a fetus. Let me give you a few examples. Over time, our cells have gone throughout massive changes, almost every cell in our body has been replaced with one that wasn't originally there, but have we changed who we are as humans? If you, Dylan, had your arm cut off, would you cease being "Dylan"? In 50 years, I'm sure a lot of things will have changed for you, but you will never stop being you until the day you die. This is because you are a substance that retains its identity throughout time and change. My car however, is a property and it's identity changes over time. If took my 1980 Firebird, "Roxanne", and started taking her apart piece by piece and replacing her with completely new parts, even if I stopped halfway, she would not be my 1980 Firebird, "Roxanne", there would be an entirely different car before me. You as a human being have intrinsic value because of your human nature, which you've had since the day you were conceived. How do I know this? Because you are a substance who's identity will never change due to time or change. So if you will have your intrinsic value in the future- which you will- what does that say about the past, when you were in the womb? It means you had that intrinsic value then as well- your mom's decision to give birth didn't decide your worth. So every fetus in the womb has intrinsic value. Now you said you agree that the fetus is human, but you don't believe that my first premise- it's wrong to kill the child- is without support. I honestly didn't think I would have to do that, but if you look at the previous paragraph, you'll see that the basic truth we come down to, is that the fetus has intrinsic value as a human, and that value is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. We can reasonably and logically conclude that it would have been wrong to kill you in the womb because it would be wrong to kill you now. So I still don't believe it was my duty to provide the reasons for preserving the child's life, I think it's yours to provide reasons to end it, but nonetheless, if it was my duty, you have my defense. Now for the most common contentions for reasons why the unborn can be killed. 1. It doesn't have cognitive brain functioning and therefore has no desire to live; therefore we can terminate it. This is the first refutation I choose to tackle because it is the most logically sound out of all the pro-choice arguments, the others go downhill from here. The reason this argument doesn't give a reason for abortion is because cognitive brain function and the desire to live are both abilities or functions that the fetus has yet developed. Yet is the keyword. If I were to take a 6 year-old girl, Susie, and an 18 year-old girl, Lucy, and stand them side by side, the Lucy will be much more developed, but we all realize the fact that we can't kill Susie due to her lack of development. Susie is much shorter, less intuitive, and less developed than Lucy, but again, her value is the same. Therefore, just because the fetus' ability to desire life isn't yet developed, or it hasn't obtained the ability of cognitive brain function, it doesn't reduce its value or strip it of its right to life. 2. The mother was raped, she shouldn't be forced to carry a child she didn't want. I really hate bringing this argument up in online debates because it such a tender topic that should be dealt with with the utmost sympathy- you can't sympathize very well with just words. Let me start though by saying this: the crime is atrocious and if found, the culprit should be punished to the full extent of the law, I believe that very strongly. I do not, however, believe that it is justification for the murder of innocence. The child in the womb is no different from a child outside of the womb, a toddler lets say. Only when it is right to kill the toddler born out of rape is it permissible to kill the fetus. I know the child may arouse horrendous memories in the mother's mind, but we need to care for that child like we care for its mother. The mother should be given therapy and support from her family, friends and the church, but never should the child be killed. 3. The child is still dependent on the mother, therefore it can be killed. This has a major flaw in its basic contention- the one who believes in this has not extrapolated and applied the same philosophy to everyone. If the level of development determines the value a person has, people handicapped and reliant on wheelchairs, people sick and dependent on doctors, newborns (arguably 100% dependent on their mothers) and all sorts of dependent people will consequently be of diminished worth. That simply isn't reasonable to assert; therefore the argument shouldn't be asserted as reasonable. 4. The mother already has 4 children and it would be irresponsible for her to bring in another! She's already struggling to make ends meet! Finances should not be a factor when it comes to preserving the human life. If finances were really the issue, the most logical thing to do would be to kill the oldest child. It just makes sense financially, and if it is truly permissible to end a life because a factor as meaningless as money, then in order to get the most "buck for the bang" the mother should just kill the oldest child- he eats the most, most expensive to clothe etc. Obviously this won't happen because inside, we value the life of the human more than we value money (or at least I hope). These are just a few of the arguments- I'd love to chat more about other ones. But I can foresee a few objections to my stance: Why do support abortion only when the mother's life is in danger, isn't she just as valuable as the fetus? My answer is, "Of course!" To explain my reasoning though, look at paramedics when faced with a dire situation, such as a car full of people flew off a bridge and they're drowning underwater. They are instructed NOT to rescue the women and children first, rather, they are told the men should be their first priority. That's not because they value men more than women, but because the men have a higher probability of surviving- if they were to rescue the women and children first, they might be trying to save someone already dead while the ones who have a chance are under the water. They make their decision based on the survivability of each person. That's what we have to do when a mother's life is at risk when giving birth. Everything possible should be done to keep both the mother and child alive, but if that's not possible, then we are forced to act to save the mother's life. My stance is taken from a purely logical and ethical point, I try to make decision without the emotional aspect, however hard that may be. And I'm serious, Dylan, we are only allowed 3 rounds to discuss this issue but if you wanna talk more, just message me. I'd really like to talk more about this with you.