Abortion

Right, first I will present two arguments why abortion is morally wrong, then I will refute Pro's arguments.Argument 1This argument has the following form:P1: A human foetus is a human beingP2: It is morally wrong to kill a human beingP3: Abortion kills a human foetusC: Abortion is morally wrongThis is a deductive syllogism, which is to say that the conclusion is true insofar as the premises are true. I will now explain why all the premises are true.Is a human foetus a human being?Consider the definition of 'human being':'A human.' (1)We know that a human foetus is a human by noting that the DNA from a human foetus is the same as the DNA from a human adult.It is also a live human, because it has the attribute of being alive. Consider the definition of life:'the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.' (2)A foetus is composed of organic matter, is growing, can function and is subject to continual change preceding death. Although it cannot reproduce in its present state, this does not mean that it is not alive, because otherwise infertile people would not be alive, which is absurd.Therefore a human foetus is a live human being with a separate body (this being evident if one simply looks at the form of a foetus in a pregnancy scan)- it is an single organism. Hence P1 is verified to be true.P2 is self-evident. I commend its veracity to the voters but if my opponent takes issue with this premise, then I will defend it.P3 is a medical fact, as abortion systematically kills a foetus. (3)As all the premises are true, the conclusion is therefore true, that abortion is immoral.Argument 2Moral assertions are only rational if they are consistent. If one maintains 'X is good in Y situation' then they must stick by their belief even if it does not favour them. If they do not do this then they are being morally inconsistent and thus irrational.The consistency principle is similar to the Golden Rule:'Treat someone in a given situation in such a way that you would consent to being treated if you were to then be put in that exact situation'.In order for a moral statement to be consistent, it must adhere to this principle. I argue that stating 'it is morally acceptable to abort a foetus' is inconsistent. Why is this?Many people state that 'it is morally acceptable to abort a foetus' - in other words they are willing to kill a foetus or allow it to be killed.Yet if they were faced with the prospect of being put in the situation of a foetus, then they would not consent to being killed.This is inconsistent; they are saying it is good to do something to someone in a given situation yet they would not consent to being treated in that way if they were in that exact same situation.As abortion is an inconsistent moral principle, it is an irrational moral principle. Therefore, it is not rational to support abortion.______________________________________________________________________________________________Pro's argumentsPro goes down the route of arguing about a woman's bodily rights.'abortion is morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body'A woman has a right to control her own body, but this right cannot be extended to the point at which it harms others. A quote by Zechariah Chafee sums up this point:'Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins' (4)In short, we have bodily rights, but not to the point at which others' rights are infringed, namely the foetus's right not to be killed.'if a child was going to die and he/she needed an organ in order to live, the parent of that child should not be legally or morally obligated to provide those organs at his/her own expense.' Really?! If a child will die if his mother does not donate a non-vital organ, then it would be morally abhorrent for the mother to refuse to do so. Parents have special obligations to their children whereas they might be exempt from these obligations for total strangers.Furthermore, the mother caused the foetus to be in the dependent situation (by consenting to sexual intercourse), so she is not morally justified in withdrawing her life support.To use an analogy, if I spiked someone's drink and this inadvertently caused that person to have kidney failure, then if I was the only possible kidney donor then I would be morally obligated to donate a kidney. This is because I was the reason that the dependant is in the situation of being dependent in the first place!Your turn, Pro! ______________________________________________________________________________________________(1) http://dictionary.reference.com... being(2) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...(3) http://www.abortionfacts.com...(4) http://en.wikiquote.org....