A Fetus is Not Morally Equivalent to a Mature Human

The ResolutionMy opponent is defending "The unborn entity, from the moment of concept, is a full-fledged member of the human community." What does it mean to be a "full-fledged member of the human community"? The resolution phrases it as "morally equivalent to a mature human." Using the definition of "moral equivalence," that becomes "properly considered to have equal rights and privileges of a mature human." Both "full-fledged" (fully developed : total, complete http://www.merriam-webster.com...) and "mature" mean "adult." We know that those under eighteen do not have the all the rights and privileges of those over eighteen. Depending upon age, they have many fewer rights. Up to certain prescribed ages, young people have limited rights of free speech, cannot leave home, cannot marry, drive autos, serve in the military, serve on juries, and so forth. Children are largely controlled by their parents. Thus negating the resolution means that from the moment of conception to birth the fetus has all the rights and privileges of adults, then the right and privileges drop to a minimum, and then slowly rise until age eighteen. Con maintains this despite the total lack of self-awareness, cognition, sensory perception, or memory. It defies common sense that right and privileges would take such a trajectory. After being born, rights and privileges grow in accordance with mental development. A zygote or blastocyst may have some rights, but that's not the subject of our debate. The debate is whether the zygote has all the rights and privileges of an adult.1. Self-awareness is essential to moral equivalence.Con asks if our rights and privileges ought to diminish when we fall asleep or otherwise lose self-awareness. Our privileges decrease dramatically. For example, driving, a privilege, while asleep or otherwise impaired is a crime. There are many laws that remove rights under conditions of diminished capacity.Con argues more generally that what engenders moral equivalence is not self-awareness, but the potential for develping self-awareness in the future. In the quotation, the word capacity does not mean potential, it means ability. The definition of capacity that makes sense in the context is "the ability to understand or learn; aptitude; capability he has a great capacity for Greek." http://www.thefreedictionary.com...The phrase "capacity for self-awareness" is commonly used to mean "the self-awareness ability." A Google search on the phrase produces many examples. For example, "Thus far, there is evidence that bottlenose dolphins, some apes, and elephants may have the capacity to be self-aware." http://en.wikipedia.org...; While there are many examples of use in that sense, I found none in the sense of potential that Con claims.Personhood depends upon the ability of being self-aware. "Self-awareness in humans is an important developmental milestone. It is the point at which an individual, usually at about age 2, develops the ability to identify him/herself objectively." http://www.psychologytoday.com...Con then moves to another definition of self-awareness, a philosophical one meaning something like "knowing one's place relative to the world." He then rejects the idea that self-awareness is subject to degree. We know that in fact rights vary with age, and privileges are subject to many measures, like licensing to do something after testing.2. The life of the mother is more important than that of the fetusCon argues that the life of the mother is saved over that of the fetus because the mother is more likely to survive, so it is a practical decision. In the example I gave, it was not true that the mother was more likely to survive than the fetus. Therefore Con's contention is false. Moreover, the argument is never made that in each case a medical decision must be made to decide the relative chances of survival, and that if the mother's odds were less, then the mother ought to die. It is virtually unanimous that the mother takes precedence. The fetus is always valued less.3. Early spontaneous abortions are universally ignoredIf zygotes are "morally equivalent" to adults, then the loss of zygotes should be mourned like the loss of adults. They are not. 60% of zygotes die, and no one cares. No one holds funerals for zygotes. They are morally nil.Con claims that "resisting natural death is not necessarily a moral duty." Natural death occurs by natural disaster and disease. So Con is asserting that when it's possible there is no moral obligation to save adults from floods or cure them of fatal diseases. I don't agree, but that's a separate point from the moral equivalence of the death. Even if we don't know the victims of a flood or tornado, virtually everyone thinks that the "nature" deaths are regrettable and sad. But no one feels sad about dying zygotes. That's because zygotes are non-functioning and not persons, and no one considers them morally equivalent.I agree with Con's suggestion that my argument implies persons in a vegetative state have fewer rights and privileges than persons who are fully functional. For example, since they cannot manage their own affairs, others must make decisions that they would ordinarily have a right to make for themselves.4. Perception and memory count in determining moral equivalenceCon argues, "The reason we would save a fully functioning human over one who is not properly functioning is because the former has more utility and is more familiar to us -- not because he is less valuable." This makes no sense. If they are morally equivalent, but we logically save the one who has more utility, that means that utility is more important than morality. That would mean, for example, that abortion is justified by utility, or, in other words, convenience. However, the assertion that utility takes precedence over moral equivalence is itself a moral judgement. If true, then zygotes are not morally equivalent, because they have less utility.Con's Case for Moral EquivalenceCon argues that because a person develops continuously from zygote to adult, there must be moral equivalence throughout all stages of development. We know that the argument is invalid, because "moral equivalence" means "entitled to equal rights and privileges" and children have fewer rights and privileges than adults. Rights and privileges accrue according to "self-awareness" in the sense of maturity in knowledge of the world. As a totally-dependent zygote without any self-awareness, perception, knowledge, or memory a person is not the same person as he is as an adult in terms of moral equivalence.Con relies upon continuity of the physical body to define what a person is. One reason that fails is because a person's rights vary with maturity and mental competence. However, I claim that what defines a person is really their memories. If memories could be transferred to a robot body that had a compatible brain function, then the person would be transferred. If a person loses all their memories, then the person ceases to be in any real sense. The concept is not novel; a theme in Eastern philosophy is "the purpose of life is to build memories."Whatever happened before you had memories is not you.