Abortion is Prima Facie Morally Wrong

I'm going to offer a brief outline of the pro-life position that I defend, and I will engage in further argumentation in the subsequent rounds. The fundamental issue regarding the abortion debate is not women's rights or other factors which concern personal autonomy, but over the status of the unborn child. Variants of the personal choice argument presuppose that the unborn child is not a human person, for if the unborn child is indeed a human person, then no amount of freedom justifies its elective termination. Henceforth, variants of the personal autonomy argument beg the question by presupposing their conclusions: they are valid if and only if the unborn are not human persons. [1] As outlined by Francis J. Beckwith, my argument against abortion will be as follows : 1. The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community. 2. It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community 3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community 4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong. [2] From the moment of conception, the unborn is a human. It has human cells, a human parent, and human DNA. The embryo does not develop into a human, it is a human which undergoes development. Humans have in their nature certain potentials. The actualization of these potentials are "merely the public presentation of functions latent in every human substance from the moment it comes into being that it may lose and regain throughout its life." [3] It develops into what it is precisely because it has intrinsic potentials that are found only within human nature. Consequently, it is simply wrong to say that the unborn are not human, for they more certainly are. Perhaps the abortion choice advocate argues that although the embryo is a human, it is not a human _person_ (a being who possesses intrinsic value). But this argument seems flawed, for how could size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency have any bearing on whether or not the unborn human is a person? A person is not a person because of how large he is, how developed he is, where he is, and what he depends on for survival. Surely we would consider a two year old to be an intrinsically valuable person when compared to an adult or teenager even though he is smaller, less developed, and more dependent on others. Moreover, it is not at all clear how a journey of a few inches through the birth canal miraculously changes a "non-valuable mass of tissue" into a valuable human person. It makes more sense to affirm that personhood is an essential property of the unborn child. Simply because it has many unactualized potentials does not mean that it is not a human. The very fact that it has these potentials in the first place stems from the fact that is has a human nature. The fetus's never actualizing its potential to think does not disqualify it as a human any more than a bird's inability to actualize its potential to fly disqualifies it as being a bird. There is hence no good reason to think that personhood is an accidental, rather than essential property. _____________ SOURCES [1] - This is a modified version of my essay, found here -- http://scaeministries.org... [2] - Francis J. Beckwith, "Defending Life" (New York: Cambridge University Press. 2007) xxii. [3] - Francis J. Beckwith, Pulling the Plug on Bioethics, The American Conservative. http://www.amconmag.com...