Abortion is Generally Immoral.

Thanks for this debate, KaytarHero. And thanks for being a lucid and thoughtful opponent. I'm grateful for your refreshing clarity. Pro argues thusly: 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. The 1st and 4th premises are not "truth apt." That is, they are neither true nor false, being rather expressions of attitude. Pro can think of zygotes as human beings, and I can think of them as proto-humans or reproductive organs. Neither of us is more right or wrong than someone who prefers tacos over hamburgers. Sometimes, however, classifications can be good without being true. Pontoon planes are classed as boats by the harbormaster but as planes by the air traffic controller. These classifications are beneficial even if not true. Is there benefit to classing zygotes as human beings? The benefit is that some people in tyrannical churches enjoy flaunting their strength in society: "Look at these muscles! I can make you have babies whether you want to or not." But that benefit is trivial beside the resulting harm, the forcing of innocent citizens into unwanted parenthood. So, Pro's proposed classification is neither good nor true. Premises 1 and 4, then, are untrue and bad. We would do harm if we treated them as true, harm to actual people (as opposed to mere zygotes, which, though they are every bit as human as sperm cells and hair follicles, cannot suffer). Premise 2: All members of humanity are intrinsically valuable based on the kind of thing they are, humans. Two problems: First, "intrinsic value" is a linguistic impossibility. Value requires a valuer. To call something intrinsically valuable is to say it is valuable even if not valuable to anyone. It is saying something is good, even if it is not good for anything. Premise 2's second problem is that it fetishizes humanity rather than making reasonable distinctions, rather than looking for actual values. We don't value people because they are "members of humanity." Consider space aliens (Enemy Mine, Cocoon, Avatar, ET, Star Trek), super-intelligent animals (101 Dalmatians, A Boy and His Dog, Watchers, The Golden Compass, Tangled, Babe), and artificial intelligences (2001, Terminator 2, Transformers, D.A.R.Y.L., Star Trek, Small Soldiers). If we aren't fetishizing humanity, we'll recognize that these nonhumans would have the joys, fears, hopes, anticipations, social interactions, etcetera that would make us value them the same as we would humans. There is nothing wrong with killing a zygote or a brain-dead body. No harm done, even though they are human. But there is something wrong with hurting a puppy, even though it is not human. Therefore, premise 2's bright line test, "Is it a member of humanity," is perverse: It protects things that don't need or benefit from protection, and it hurts things (actual people, who need the freedom to make their own reproductive choices) who do need protection. Premise 3:It is prima facie wrong to kill an innocent human being. Killing people causes fear and grief; it makes people unhappy. That's why it's wrong. That's what's wrong with it. That's why we have a moral rule against it. So long as "human beings" refers to people, then you can say it is prima facie wrong to kill them. But, if you class non-persons (cabbages, say, or zygotes) as "human beings," then there is no longer a presumption that it is wrong to kill human beings. So, given Pro's definition of "human being," premise 3 is neither true nor useful. Rather, it is false and destructive. Taking this premise as true would be immoral: Victims of this new rule would be forced into unwanted parenthood. Terrible suffering. No benefit. Premise 3, then, if we accept Pro's definition of "human being," is false and bad. Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is generally immoral. There is nothing apparently wrong with abortion. People who want babies should have them, and people who don't want them shouldn't. Forcing either group to do the thing they don't want would be immensely harmful. On its face, then, Pro's conclusion seems false, harmful, immoral. Looking at Pro's argument, we see that his conclusion is also unsupported. Pro has four premises, each of which must be true in order for his conclusion to follow. But not one of them is true. Two of them aren't truth apt (they express opinion or attitude, rather than facts). The other two are just false. And all of them are bad: to the extent that they are believed, they harm actual people (not cabbages or zygotes). In a free country, you wouldn't have to have babies if you didn't want to. Nobody would get to say, "Hey, I have religion, so I can make you have babies whether you want to or not!" Conclusion: Pro has the burden of proof. He undertook to establish that abortion is generally immoral. He offered a single argument for that purpose, and that argument fails because its premises do not withstand inspection. Not only has the argument failed, but the conclusion of the argument seems false on its face. We shouldn't want to force people to have babies any more than we should force them to eat Brussels sprouts. In a free country, citizens get to choose. There is nothing wrong with having babies, and there is nothing wrong with not having babies. Nobody should be forced or pressured either way. Even teaching that there is something bad or immoral about abortion is improper. It causes suffering without doing good. We have been given no reason to believe that abortion is generally immoral. Vote Con. Notes: "Embryologists, who are the experts in the field, consistently agree that life begins at fertilization." This is a gross misrepresentation. You won't find an embryologist anywhere who thinks that dead sperm and eggs produce live zygotes. "Zygotes": A zygote is a fertilized egg, not necessarily yet attached to the womb. I talk about zygotes even though I intend my argument to apply to ebrios and fetuses too, just as Pro talks about the "preborn" even though some zygotes will never be born, and even though "preborn" could equally well apply to sperm cells. Pro has the burden of proof. He specifically undertook to prove the immorality of abortion from the time of conception on. This includes zygotes. All of my arguments apply to embryos and fetuses as well, but it is simplest to pick one word and stick with it. Anti-abortion people tend to use "fetus," and pro-abortion people ought, for similar tactical reasons, to prefer "zygote." "We know the preborn are alive ..." Certainly, even as we know that preborn sperm cells are alive, and even as we know that cancer cells are alive.