Abortion

Again, I thank Ron-Paul for issuing this challenge. In the future, I would hope that Pro would make his resolution clear at the beginning so as to ensure that someone would take the debate knowing exactly what they're getting into.I will first make my case for why abortion is immoral, then tackle Pro's contentions (which are by and large irrelevant to the morality of abortion).I will put my argument in the form of a syllogism and then support my premises with evidence.Premise 1: From fertilization, the preborn are biological members of humanity.Premise 2: All members of humanity are intrinsically valuable based on the kind of thing they are, humans.Premise 3: It is prima facie wrong to kill an innocent human being.Premise 4: Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is generally immoral.Premise 1Embryologists, who are the experts in the field, consistently agree that life begins at fertilization. For example, from the most-used textbook on embryology, the authors note: "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]On top of that, the more sophisticated pro-choice philosophers, like Judith Jarvis Thompson (who came up with the famous analogy of the violinist), and Peter Singer, accept the full humanity of the preborn. Peter Singer has noted, “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.” [2]It's simply common sense. We know the preborn are alive because they grow. Non-living and dead things don't grow. They also exhibit the four signs of life: metabolism, growth, cell division, response to stimuli, and cell reproduction. [3] The preborn have human DNA, and they are the product of human parents. Creatures reproduce after their own kind; dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. At no point in human development is a member of humanity a "non-human."This is also different from saying that a hair follicle has human DNA, so it is wrong to pluck them out. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses are unique individual humans, developing from within, made up of all the individual parts. A hair follicle must stay plugged in to the parent organism to function. However, the parent organism can still function even if he/she loses parts of their body. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a full human organism made up of individual parts of which it develops from within, not constructed like a car.The pro-life position is that life begins at fertilization, which is supported by science. The pro-choice position places "human life" at certain arbitrary points which change from human to human. The pro-life position is the only consistent one.Premise 2Human value is an intrinsic value, not an instrumental one. Most people agree that humans outside the womb are valuable and should be protected. People decry the loss of innocent human life, especially when those lives lost are children. Human value is not something we get in degrees, it's something we either have or don't have. A pre-born human is just as valuable as a born human, and any reason used to rationalize abortion due to the preborn human being "different" leads to discrimination and would allow us to discriminate against someone outside the womb who fits those same characteristics.Premise 3When I say the preborn are innocent human beings, I am not talking "spiritually" innocent, but physically innocent. They have committed no crime, and certainly not anything worthy of being killed for it. The only thing they have done is exist, and in the vast majority of cases it was through a consensual action of two people. If two people engage in a consensual act that results in the creation of a new, needy human life, they bear a responsibility to care for that life.Premise 4Every abortion takes the life of a new, unique, living member of humanity, which has an intrinsic value just based on being human. Abortions take the life of an innocent, unique human being and is therefore immoral.My contention is that because the preborn are biological members of humanity, and killing an innocent member of humanity is wrong. If Con is to win this debate, he must show why the preborn are not members of humanity. For if they are not human, then no justification for abortion is necessary. But if they are human, then not justification for abortion is sufficient.Now on to Pro's contentions:Contention 1: Pro makes a case that is counter-intuitive, that carrying a child to term, for a short time, leads a woman to have a higher risk of breast cancer. However, the studies that Pro has shown from NCI have been proven, in a peer-reviewed study, that the original studies had severe methodological weaknesses and flaws and therefore do not invalidate the conclusion that there is an increased risk of breast cancer. [4]The reason a woman is at increased risk of breast cancer after an abortion is because of lobes in her breasts. There are three stages, based on the maturity of the lobules. They start as immature, stage 1, mature and become stage 2 after puberty, and finally mature completely once her first full-term pregnancy has been carried and the child delivered. These lobules then produce the milk that her child feeds on. While not every woman who has an abortion will develop breast cancer, it does increase her risk. [5]However, whether a woman may or may not develop breast cancer is not the issue. Women are allowed to do dangerous activities (such as smoking or sky diving). What is the issue is that abortion takes a human life and unless Pro can refute this, then I have shown that abortion is immoral and the breast cancer risk irrelevant.Contention 2: The crime increase does not matter whether or not abortion is illegal, but on how well the child was treated. If given away for adoption to a loving family, the child will most likely not fall into a life of crime. If a child grows up in a family where they are unwanted and hated, then they may become criminals when they get older. The solution is not to kill them but to put them in a home with a loving family.Contention 3: The law should not be faulted for making it more dangerous to commit crimes. We should not legalize bank robbery even though that would make it safer for bank robbers, and people are going to rob banks anyway.Contention 4: Here I think Pro uses faulty logic. For example, with more people, more jobs are needed. If there's a large population, there would be more jobs because more people would need to be serviced. Businesses would be making more money and, in return, could hire more employees. But again, why not just kill all the homeless people in the world, or kill babies in poor families because the other kids could eat better? Why is that wrong but killing an unborn child for the same reason is okay?Contention 5: What does Pro mean by a bad life? Many people in poor families grow up to lead productive lives. So again, why not just kill two-year-old children? Why is that wrong but killing preborn children is okay?[1] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.[2] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com.........;[4] Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Vol. 10, No. 4, Winter 2005[5] http://www.womenshealthzone.net...;