Abortion in the embrionic period is necessarily immoral

First, a rebuttal to Con's syllogism. Premise 1 Saying that the unborn is a human being, and arguing that anything with human DNA, is equivocation. You are moving from using "human" as a noun (e. g. an embryo is a human), to using it as an adjective (e. g. skin cells are human). So the argument that skin cells are human does not negate a zygote or embryo, etc. , from being considered a full member of Homo sapiens which, contrary to what Joyce Arthur thinks she knows about pro-lifers, is what pro-lifers argue. Pro has used the words of a feminist, but I will see his feminist and raise him an embryologist (an expert on human embryos). This is from the most-used textbook on embryology: "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte. " [1] Embryologists do not consider zygotes and embryos human in the sense that a skin cell is human, but they consider them a new genetically distinct human organism. Ms. Arthur also argues that human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. But by whose definition? Her own? This is special pleading. I've never seen a definition of human being that requires one being completely independent. Using her reasoning, people in comas are not considered human beings and it is perfectly moral to kill someone on a coma because they are dependent on life support, despite having a good chance of coming out of it. The reality is that embryos *are* separate individuals, not in the sense that they can survive on their own but in the sense that they are a separate entity from the mother. They are only in the mother's womb because they can't yet survive in any other location. One might wonder if pro-choicers would remain pro-choice if artificial womb technology (which is being worked on) comes to fruition and the unborn embryo could be transferred to an artificial womb. Would it then still be all right to kill a human embryo? Premise 2 Of course, I do not take issue with this premise, other than the wording. Abortion destroys something is is of the human species, not merely "human" as a body part. My arm is a human arm, but it is not a separate human organism. The problem is that many pro-choicers confuse parts with wholes. Human embryos are separate organisms, alive because they grow and exhibit the other signs of life, such as response to stimuli and cell division, and they are human because they have human DNA and are the product of human parents. Everything reproduces after their own kind: dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. At no point in human development is the product of two humans "non-human" and then suddenly become human. Embryos develop themselves from within; they are a whole human organism, not like an arm or skin cell, which are parts of a human that make up the greater whole. Premise 3 Pro-lifers do not argue that embryos are potential humans. They are potential toddlers, but actual humans. So potentiality is irrelevant. Contraceptives are not immoral, despite the fact that they prevent a sperm from fertilizing an egg, preventing a potential human from coming into existence (there is no human in existence to do wrong to). It is not immoral to kill a skin cell, even though they could potentially be used in cloning to create a human being. Killing a human embryo is wrong because you are killing an actual human being, already in existence. Killing a human embryo is not wrong simply because it possesses human DNA. It is wrong because you are killing a human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, who has an inherent right to live. They have the inherent capacity for all the things that make humans valuable. If you support killing a human embryo, you must also support killing a human fetus or a newborn for the same reason, and some pro-choice philosophers, like Tooley and Singer, argue for infanticide because killing an infant is morally no different from killing a fetus. I agree that Con's syllogism is valid, however it is not sound. In Premise 1, he equivocates by comparing something "human" (an appendage) with something that is a human organism. Premise 3 is inconsistent because no one would argue it is moral to kill an innocent human being without cause. You must prove that an embryo is not an innocent human being to consider it moral (or at least that it is not necessarily immoral). Killing an innocent human being is immoral, therefore killing a human embryo is immoral. Now for Con's bodily rights argument. On the surface, Ms. Thompson's argument appears to be a similar situation to pregnancy. However, it fails in three key areas. First, in this analogy you are a product of violence. You are kidnapped and forced to be connected to this person. However, the vast majority of pregnancies are through a consensual act between two people. To create a human being through an act that is consensual only to kill that individual is irresponsible and barbaric. Consider this: you come upon a machine that at the press of a button, will give you a pleasurable experience. However, there is a one in 100 chance that a baby will pop out of the machine. You press the button for the experience, but a baby does pop out. Are you now responsible for that baby you just created, even though you only wanted the pleasurable experience? Second, you are not responsible for the situation the violinist finds himself in. It is not your fault he is dying from his kidney ailment. Consider this scenario: You have three sons and are playing baseball with them. Your son hits a pop fly which soars into your neighbor's yard and breaks his window. You knock on your neighbor's door and apologize for the broken window. You say, "I consented to play baseball with my sons, but not to break your window. Therefore I am not responsible for the broken window. " That excuse will not fly. You are still responsible and must make restitution for the broken window. In the same way, you are responsible for a child you create through the intimate act of sexual intercourse. Finally, most pregnant women are not bed-ridden. They can still get out and have a life. Becoming pregnant is not the end of the world that many people fear that it is. So, Ms. Arthur is correct that one does not have an obligation to save a drowning person they happen upon, but one does have a moral obligation to save a drowning person if you pushed them into the river. As I have demonstrated, Ms. Thompson's analogy is not an accurate reflection of pregnancy. A person's right to life does not always trump someone's right to bodily autonomy, but pregnancy is different. In pregnancy, the mother is usually responsible for the young human being there in the first place, and the human is living in the only place in the entire universe they can survive. I appreciate Con's thoughtful arguments, and I look forward to our next round. [1] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Mï¿½ller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8