The Morality of Abortion

In this post, I will offer a rebuttal to Con's opening arguments. First, let me begin with some concessions. I agree that from the moment of conception, the cell or clump of cells is alive. Second, I agree that from the moment of conception the cell or clump of cells is human in the sense of being the product of humans, having human DNA, and having the capacity to go through every stage of human development, e.g. zygote, fetus, infant, child, adult, etc. I also agree that this debate hinges on the question, "What is the unborn?" I agree that if it is not a human person, then no justification for taking its life is necessary. I don't quite agree that no justification is adequate in case it is a human person. At the very least, I think a pregnant woman would have the right to save her own life by having an abortion even if the unborn inside her were a human person. But we're debating abortion in general, not exceptional cases, so that disagreement won't have any bearing on my rebuttal. Where Con and I disagree, then, is whether the unborn, particularly at the earliest stages of development, is a person. Con frequently uses the phrase "human being," which I find to be ambiguous given the distinction I have been making between something, like an individual cell, that is human but not a person, and something like an adult that is both human and a person. It is hard to tell whether Con meant for "human being" to carry with it the idea of personhood. Let's begin with the "law of biogenesis." According to Con's citation of this law, it states that living things reproduce after their own kind. But it appears Con pours meaning into the law that isn't there. Granted, humans produce humans rather than fish. Catfish produce catfish rather than birds. Condors produce condors rather than snakes. Etc. It doesn't seem to follow that because each species produces the same species that it is a personal member of that species in all stages of development. The law of biogenesis is too general for it to carry that meaning. It carries no more meaning than that alligators come from alligators, oak trees come from oak trees, etc. To see my point, let me apply a reductio ad absurdum. If we could pour any meaning we wish into "kind" when reading the law of biogenesis, then we could say something like, "Adults beget adults." That would not be absurd if all we meant was that adults produce beings who eventually become adults, or that adults are the products of adults before them. But it would be absurd if we took it to mean that when two adults reproduced, the offspring, from the very beginning of its existence, was also an adult. In the same way, it is obvious that the product of two human persons will be something that is human with the capacity to go through every stage of human development, but it doesn't follow that it's a personal being through every stage of development. Con is asking the law of biogenesis to state more than it actually states. Let's move on Con's four differences between a fetus and a new born. But first let me point out that "fetus" is a level of development. It is later than zygote. All I mean to argue is that AT LEAST from the first moments of conception, abortion is morally permissible. I suspect Con was using "fetus" to capture every stage of development prior to birth, so I'll respond as if that were the case. Con gave four differences between a fetus and a new born and argued that none of these differences are relevant to the question of whether or not abortion is morally permissible. I grant that size is irrelevant. I think a good argument can be made to show that location and level of dependency are relevant, but I'm not going to pursue that. Instead, I just want to take issue with level of development. I think level of development IS morally relevant to the abortion question. Con's argument for why level of development is not relevant appears to be that because level of development doesn't amount to a change in species, and that humans are human through all stages of development, then level of development is irrelevant to the abortion question. All that's relevant is whether it's human or not. But as I've already shown, being human is not enough to confer a right to life. Fingers are just as human as full grown adults, but it's not murder if you cut a finger off without justification, whereas it is murder when you kill an adult without justification. The reason is because fingers are not persons, but adults are. It doesn't follow that because there's no moral difference between a 2 year old and a 30 year old that there is therefore no moral difference between a zygote and a new born. To make that analogy work, Con would have to show that humans are persons at every stage of development, including the earliest stages. So far he hasn't done that. By using his 2 year old vs. 30 year old analogy, Con has shown that SOME differences in level of development are morally irrelevant, but he is far from showing that ALL differences in level of development are morally irrelevant. Zygotes and new borns differ far more substantially than 2 year olds and 30 year olds differ. Level of development may be irrelevant when it comes to 2 year old and 30 year old, but it is not irrelevant between zygotes and new borns. The big difference is personhood. Basically, like Con said, this all boils down to "what is the unborn?" While we can both agree that the unborn is human through every stage of development, neither the law of biogenesis nor Con's argument from analogy show that the unborn are human persons through every stage of development. Con, therefore, has not managed to show that abortion is immoral.