Abortion!

My opponent's argument is not only plagiarized (http://womensissues.about.com...), but it is also poorly rooted in logic. All of the assertions my opponent has put forth assume that abortion is wrong and therefore they commit the logical fallacy known as begging the question. [1] The rest of your plagiarized contentions will remain disregarded until you properly back them up with evidence and reasoning. Your main issue with abortion is that you regard it as being morally wrong. However, I can clearly demonstrate that it is not morally wrong. In doing this I will simply reiterate arguments that I put forth in a previous debate. *Case Pro* ======================================== The Biological Version of the Central Anti Abortion Argument ======================================== Throughout the years there have been many arguments put forth against abortion. However, most of them are derived from some version of the following syllogism: {1} It is wrong to kill an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens. {2} A human fetus is an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens. {3} Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human fetus. This argument is structurally valid. However, not all of the premises are sound. [2] It fails to demonstrate why membership inside of a species represents a significant moral boundary. Furthermore, if the argument were valid it would also have to be valid in the case of someone that has experienced upper brain death since they can also be innocent members of the species Homo sapiens. [3] Like a fetus, a human with upper brain death can also have a beating heart and many of the basic biological functions that we associate with being "alive". And once we take this scenario into consideration we can rewrite the syllogism so that it reads as follows: {1} It is wrong to kill an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens. {2} A human with upper brain death is an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens. {3} Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human with upper brain death. After we have put this alternative into the syllogism we are left with a reductio ad absurdum argument. If the biological version of the anti abortion argument were valid then this derivative would also be valid. However, it is simply nonsensical to speak of the "murder" of someone who has already experienced a permanent loss of consciousness. [4] Clearly, the first premise of the central anti abortion argument is deeply flawed. In order for us to formulate a syllogism regarding murder that is sensible we must first identify what moral principle distinguishes a normal adult human from one that has experienced upper brain death. And given the obvious differences in cognition between these two subjects the search for this principle should not be too difficult. Consequentially, this moral principle must involve some kind of reference to the mental abilities of a normal human that are not present in someone with upper brain death. From this standpoint it then becomes easy to realize that the right to life any entity can hold rests within its respective capacity for cognition. [5] Once it becomes established that cognition is the relevant moral distinction between normal humans and those without functional upper brains many things follow, both ethically and logically. With this in mind I will introduce the proper criterion for judging the ethics of abortion later. But, for now, it will be sufficient to recognize that something can't seriously have a right to life if it lacks certain kinds of mental capacities. This recognition will then pave the way for me to create my first argument. ========= Contention 1: A fetus doesn't have a right to life. ========= A fetus is a member of the biological species homo sapiens, but it is not a person. [6] It is not a rational and self-conscious being and therefore it cannot be granted the same rights that we would grant to a person. Moreover, a fetus is not capable of holding a conscious desire to continue living. Therefore, it is meaningless to speak about the "murder" of a fetus. Murder implies the unlawful killing of a person that has a conscious desire to continue living. ======== Conclusion ======== People have a serious right to life because they are self-conscious and are able to hold a desire to continue living. On the other hand, a fetus is not a self-conscious being nor is it capable of holding preferences one-way or the other with respect to its existence. Therefore, it is not morally wrong to kill a fetus. The fetus may be "innocent" in some sense, but this is irrelevant since it doesn't have a right to life. I will expand upon this argument later, but for now I will leave it up to Con to present his case. Definitions: morality- 1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... abortion- a. Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Self-consciousness is an acute sense of self-awareness. It is a preoccupation with oneself, as opposed to the philosophical state of self-awareness, which is the awareness that one exists as an individual being; although some writers use both terms interchangeably or synonymously. http://en.wikipedia.org... ---References--- [1] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://health.howstuffworks.com... [4]http://books.google.com... [5] http://spot.colorado.edu... [6] http://www.utilitarian.net...