Abortion

Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu..................... (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com Now to address my opponents arguments. My opponent makes the "what about rape?" argument. I'll make you a deal. I think it's a terrible deal but I'll make it. since only .03% of abortions are because of rape(1) I will allow for rape as well in order to save 99% of babies even though this sins of the father argument for killing a baby is morally reprehensible. as for a last resort being necessary when "two human lives are connected" nothing. I repeat, nothing beyond the life of the mother exception I gave earlier, gives you the right to kill a baby. Ever. Beyond life endangerment because of a pregnancy, you should not be allowed to kill your baby. I don't care about your organs. I don't care if you have your appendix removed. I don't care if you donate a kidney. a baby is not an organ. At no point is a baby an organ. this assertion is frankly ridiculous. Branching from my previous point, I don't care what you do with your body. A baby is not your body. At no point is a baby your body. A baby from the moment of fertilization is a genetically distinct human being completely separate in identity from the mother. To say anything else is to deny facts, to deny science, to deny the truth. No one of faith can support killing a baby. when you say last resort, unless you mean the life endangerment exception, it isn't really a last resort. it's an easy out that removes responsibility for a parent's actions. I already stated, and you have acknowledged, that I will only accept an abortion as correct if the life of the mother is endangered. If a woman will die because of a pregnancy, I would have that be legal. so your point on endangerment falls flat unless you want to make the argument that it is a post birth endangerment at which point you can't kill the baby anyway. (1) Alan Guttmacher institute.