Abortion Is Morally Permissible

As space is limited, I will dive right in. I would like to begin by making a brief case for the pro-life position. Then I will refute Freeman's objections. All human beings have a prima facie right to life, based on the kind of thing that they are; that is, human beings with the inherent capacity to be moral, rational agents. This includes everyone, from the healthy developing embryo, to the healthy newborn, to the mentally disabled, even to the brain dead human. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances which would make preserving someone's life futile. For example, the brain dead human being has an inherent right to life before being brain dead. But through some horrible event, he has become brain dead. He is, in essence, no longer alive. Only the body remains alive. The person he once was is gone; he is, essentially, dead. There is no reason to continue keeping the body alive. This is much different from a healthy, developing embryo who, as long as she is allowed to continue to develop normally, will develop the attributes that make her valuable as a human being. While the brain dead human no longer has a future, the developing embryo does. This is why we say it is prima facie wrong to kill an innocent human. C1: The sanctity of life doctrine is morally untenable. Now, it seems that Freeman is attempting to poison the well by calling sanctity of life a "doctrine," but most pro-life philosophers argue the value of humans from a secular perspective. There are counterexamples to just about everything. In fact, there are clear counterexamples to every argument a pro-abortion-choice advocate raises. Yet I'm sure they would not say this means their arguments are clearly wrong. Here's a clear example of a pro-choicer attempting to confuse the issue. Abortion is morally wrong because it takes the life of an innocent human child, with an inherent capacity to be a moral, rational agent. Considering the case of an anencephalic fetus, this is no longer a case of abortion but euthanasia, which is another matter entirely. One can be in favor of killing an anencephalic fetus as a measure of mercy killing, and still be pro-life. Additionally, Freeman blatantly misrepresents Josh Brahm's position on the anencephalic fetus. Brahm only granted abortion in those cases for the sake of the debate. Since anencephaly is so rare, he wanted to discuss abortion in the other 9,999 cases. This strikes me as simply dishonest. Appealing to mentally disabled does not prove that abortion is only morally justifiable, only in those rare instances. But if Freeman believes that it is moral to kill a mentally disabled unborn human, does he also believe it is morally permissible to kill a mentally handicapped toddler, or adult? If not, then he must justify his position with an argument that is clearly not ad hoc. Believing humans to have a right to life is not based on an irrelevant biological property. In fact, just the opposite. The reason that sexism and racism are wrong is because it unfairly discriminates against human beings. Female are equal to men, and blacks are equal to whites (and other nationalities) exactly because we are all human and all have the same value as human beings. Regarding Freeman's third point, I would ask him to justify why, if humans are intrinsically valuable, they are necessarily valuable and must be valuable in all possible worlds. I read the links in question but I didn't see this position jusitfied. Additionally, I don't see how it would follow that if we are intrinsically valuable in this world, we must be intrinsically valuable in all possible worlds. What makes us intrinsically valuable is that we have the inherent capacity to be moral, rational beings, even while unborn (it just hasn't yet developed). If there are humans in a possible world who do not have that inherent capacity, then it does not follow that they would be inherently valuable. Lastly, it is not plausible that right to life is an accidental property. You either have it or you don't. It is either moral to kill you or it is not. Just like one is human or one is not. This is why the right to life cannot be tied to something like consciousness, in which a human can have in degrees. Freeman has not destroyed the concept that all humans have a prima facie right to life. Just the opposite. Simply because abortion may be justified in some cases (such as in the rare case of anencephaly) does not justify abortion in all, or even most, cases. Just like if pulling the plug on a brain dead human is moral, that does not mean it is moral to kill any other humans. C2: A fetus is not a person and thus cannot have a serious right to life. Personhood does not establish a right to life. In fact, the term "person" has been used in the past to discriminate against a group of humans. Blacks were once considered sub-human. They were considered 3/5ths of a person for voting purposes only. As such, I take issue with premise one because "person" is a human concept. You can take away anyone's right to life by simply labeling them as "not a person. " All humans have a right to life, despite whether we considered them "persons" or not. Secondly, if you're going to accept premise two, then you must also believe that toddlers and the mentally disabled are not persons, and therefore do not have a right to life. It would be moral to kill toddlers and the mentally disabled without any justification whatsoever. Warren even recognizes this. Her reasons for not accepting infanticide are completely ad hoc. She just wasn't brave enough to make the leap that Peter Singer and Michael Tooley have, that infanticide is morally permissible. The reality is that one does not have to have present desires to be harmed. First, consider a case in which a child's father dies, leaving his entire estate to him. The child has no idea that he will receive all that money, and an unscrupulous lawyer takes advantage of a loophole and keeps all the money for himself. The child may not be aware of the harm, but the child has still been harmed because he is worse off than before. Secondly, pro-life philosopher Don Marquis advances the future-like-ours argument. The reason that pulling the plug on a brain-dead human is morally acceptable, but abortion is not, is because the developing embryo has a future like ours, and the brain dead human no longer has a future. By killing an unborn child through abortion you are depriving them of the joy of life, and of all the experiences that she would otherwise be able to enjoy if she had been left alive. The pro-choice position is not consistent. In fact, it proves too much because if present desires were necessary to have a right to life, then it would be morally acceptable to kill sleeping humans and humans in reversible comas. The pro-life position would consistently allow extra-terrestrials and other beings to have a right to life, because what is important is the inherent capacity to be moral, rational agents. Intelligent alien lifeforms (e. g. Vulcans or Klingons) would certainly qualify. Regarding the cerebrum, Freeman's example from personal identity does not prove what he believes it does. What this proves is that the cerebrum is the important aspect and anything that the cerebrum is transplanted into would have a right to life by virtue of the cerebrum residing inside it. [1]Finally, rights function to protect everyone, including those who don't know they want to be protected. This is why an indoctrinated slave who does not have a desire to live would still be protected under the law. After all, toddlers also don't have a present desire to continue living, yet they are still protected under the law. Freeman has not made an adequate case for why abortion is morally acceptable. Source: . http://www.debate.org...