Abortion

I will make some generic, but important overviews, followed by a defense of my case. Overview One: Pro has failed to offer his own case. This is important for two reasons: (1) the rules that Pro stipulated to in round one state "Round Two will only be for cases (no rebuttals.)" This would also imply that Pro's rebuttal should not be evaluated, though I will respond to it. (2) Pro has the sole burden of proof. Pro cannot affirm the topic simply by responding to the Con case. Rejecting Con's objections is not the same as proving one's own points. In fact, Pro has not points that are not rebuttals. These are prima facie reasons to vote Con. Overview Two: The definition of abortion is "an intervention to remove the embryo or fetus from the womb, thus ending the pregnancy. An abortion necessarily implies that the fetus is unlikely to survive as a result of the procedure." This definition was stipulated/agreed to by Pro when he accepted the round. Because abortion is an "intervention," it is not a natural process. This is further supported by the notion that the procedure itself is responsible for the fetus's death, not any natural occurrence. DEFENDING THE CON 1) Pro agreed that this debate was about "abortion as a principle," not about specific examples. Thus, my observation was entirely justified. As to the more serious charge that my observation and contentions are contradictory, my response is that in the case of abortion to save the mother, both the mother's and the fetus's FLOs are in jeopardy. Therefore, we are faced with two equally bad harms. However, a mother already has a far more established FLO, i.e. she is something already and will become more. In this case, that's saving the mother. As for the mother, saving he life should be prioritized again because she has greater moral worth than the fetus because she is capable of moral thought and is sentient. Being a moral agent gives her more significance morally. This is not to say that the fetus is worthless, just worth less. Thus, in either case, when faced with two harms, we take the least bad one.Thus, there is NO contradiction. 2) I am not making an argument for potential life in the sense that you are interpreting it. I am NOT saying that a fetus should not be aborted because it could become a moral agent, I AM saying that a fetus should not be aborted because the potential itself has worth. Marquis, in his essay, actually addresses this very point. He writes, "one may try to generate an argument against abortion by arguing that because persons have the right to life. Such an argument is plainly invalid as it stands...Potential presidents don't have the rights of the presidency; potential voters don't have the right to vote. In the FLO argument, potentiality is not used in order to bridge the gap between adults and fetuses, as is done above. The FLO theory of the wrongness of killing adults is based upon the adult's potentiality to have a future of value. Potentiality is in the argument from the very beginning. Thus, the plainly false premise is not required. FLO theory is not an example of an illegitimate inference." Basically, it is not because you have the potential to become a moral agent that you have worth; it is because you have any potential, period. So, in the example of the blastocyst, your example falls apart. You compare skin cells that we scratch off to embryos and fetuses. Clearly, a skin cell that you scratch off is not an organism unto itself, thus it has no FLO. As to the fly, no fly has the same FLO as a fetus. A fly's future could never be as valuable as that of a sentient being. A fly has potential, but its potential just doesn't compare. Final note: Pro barely even touches my second contention, extend it. The impact is that medical arguments show that abortion is wrong on balance.