Abortion and infanticide are morally equivalent.

His case then mine. "Human life begins when brain activity begins also, in addition to personhood. The fetus is not a person before brain activity. After brain activity begins, the fetus is a person. This is why killing an infant is morally wrong, yet killing a fetus before brain waves are recordable is fine. The logic is simple: A human looses his personhood when his brain activity stops. Therefore a human gains his personhood when brain activity begins." Personhood is not humanhood, being a person in the moral or mental sense means more than brain activity. It means that the individual has to be responsible and aware of its actions. In courts of law, mentally unstable individuals are allowed to plead innocent by way of insanity. This is because we feel they are not responsible for their actions. They are not mentally persons. Infants are not persons either. Also, your argument for brain activity being the beginning of life is flawed. Take this analogy: I have a dollar. I lose the dollar when I buy some fries from McDonald's. This however, does not mean that I gain the dollar by not buying fries from McDonald's. Just because something ends because of occurrence x does not mean it begins because of the opposite of occurrence x. "It is very important to note here that just because two things are immoral, does not mean they are morally equivalent. For example, stealing is morally wrong, and murder is morally wrong. Are they morally equivalent? No. For example, imagine a hypothetical scenario if you will: A man needs a bone marrow transplant. Your bone marrow is the only bone marrow that he needs in order to survive. You only have two options: 1)Don't give your bone marrow and let the man die 2)Stab the man in the chest with a sword, effectively murdering him Of course, if you had to pick, you would choose option 1. Is it morally wrong? Maybe. But not nearly as morally wrong as committing murder. The same thing applies to abortion. Severing the umbilical cord and letting the fetus starve may be morally wrong, but It wont be AS morally wrong as killing someone. My opponent may argue that starving an infant would be morally equivalent to starving a fetus, however, this is not how my opponent defined infanticide, he defined infanticide as "killing" an infant. While in the case of abortion one can simply let the fetus die by a premature delivery, which is not as morally wrong as killing someone." I would contend that although stealing and murder are not equivalent, killing and letting die are. For example, say I am at my obscenely rich uncle's dinner party. His young son is taking a bath. Incidentally, if his son dies, I, his favorite nephew will get his son's inheritance. Since no one is around, I decide to murder his son, and make it seem like a drowning. This is obviously wrong. Now take this situation: I see his son having a seizure in the bath tub. If I do not intervene, he will die. Instead, I decide to let him drown so I get the inheritance. Both examples are equivalent, my actions or inaction led to the child's death, as the result is the same, their immorality is the same. Now I know you will say that my saving the nephew wouldn't have caused me pain, so I should have saved him, and that pregnancies cause pain. It is overly self-important to feel that your personal happiness is more important than another's life. Although the bone marrow transplant is not something I desire, it is effectively killing the other man to refuse my marrow. Temporary pain is irrelevant, that man's death is permanent. In response to my choice of letting the man die or stabbing him to death, I would say that the only reason stabbing him to death is worse is because he is deprived of time to tend to his affairs before he dies. By denying him the marrow you are effectively stabbing him through the chest. "Due to the level of pain the person would have to endure, he should have the moral right to opt out simply because he does not want to handle the pain. The same applies to abortion. The level of pain involved for a complete pregnancy is greater than a bone marrow transplant." Pregnancy cannot cause enough pain to warrant the destruction of a FLO. While some extreme situations in life may warrant killing, pregnancy is not one of them. My case: "If you are going to define being a person as the ability to feel pain, than abortion would still be permissible before the fetus is able to feel pain, this does not hold true for infanticide, since the ability to feel pain is already there. " I listed other criterion as well, maybe you didn't see them, but to be a person, an individual must meet all of them, and neither fetuses nor infants meet all of the criteria. "This is known as the potential life argument. Potential life is not the same thing as actual life. Even if it is wrong to kill potential life, are you really willing to argue that it is just as morally wrong as killing actual life? Just because they are both morally wrong does not mean they are equally morally wrong EX: vandalism and murder are both wrong, but not equally morally wrong." I am ready and arguing that it is the same as actual life, and anyhow, infants don't really have any actual FLO, they may be biologically alive, but they don't have a FLO. That won't occur until childhood. The reason however it is equivalent is that the result is the same, an individual is deprived of its just desserts. For example, if I owe someone a dollar, it is just as bad for me to not pay him back as it is to pay him back, then steal the dollar. "By this logic, an FLO can exist before the fetus even exists. I probably have the potential right now to go out with some prostitute, and impregnate her. Should it be immoral not to? After all, by choosing not to impregnate a woman, I will be ruining the ruining the potential "FLOs" that can come forth from my impregnating the prostitute, heaven forbid." Well, the reason an abortion is different, is that you are changing what would naturally occur. If I impregnate someone, the fetus will almost certainly develop into a person. If I simply live my life and impregnate no one, I am depriving no one of any FLO. It is like me never borrowing money, if I borrowed money (was impregnated [if I were a female]) and didn't pay it back (abortion) that would be wrong. If I never borrow (abstinence or contraception) then I never owe any money, so not paying people back is not an issue. "1)Yes they are. See your own definition: The ability to feel pain- Infants can feel pain, a zygote can't 2)I am not Warren, what does warren have to do with this? 3)I defined a person as a human with brain activity, that means an embryo is not a person, a fetus is. " 1) You didn't read the whole definition, there is more than feeling pain to being a person. 2) Warren's definition is good, because it creates a mental person that is responsible for his or her actions, and has value as an individual, basically an individual worthy of rights. Simply having brain activity does not warrant rights. Ants have brain activity, and I have no moral qualms when I set ant traps to prevent my house from being overrun by ants. 3) I just showed brain activity is insufficient. As I am low on room I'll summarize your objection to my Jesus analogy. You said that saving the man did not cause pain, so it is an obligation. As I said, only a tremendous amount of pain is worth more than a human life. You also said that killing and letting die and not equivalent. Yes they are, they end the same. You said that pain is important. I'll say it again, life is more important, only huge amounts of pain outweigh life. Why vote PRO? 1. Infants and fetuses are not persons, so any action done on them is equivalent. 2. Infants and fetuses have FLOs, both infanticide and abortion deprive them of FLOs 3. Leeching is not justification for abortion.