Abortion is Generally Immoral

I wish to thank Con for his time in debating this issue with me.Con claims he has dimantled my case and refuted my argument, but this simply isn't true. In fact, if he wishes to show that unborn humans are not full-fledged members of the human community, he has gone about it completely wrong.Premise 1Con has not offered any reasons to believe that viability is the appropriate measure of considering someone a full-fledged human. In fact, viability is a moving target. Viability used to be at 28 or 29 weeks, but is now generally considered to be at 24 weeks [1], although babies have been born as early as 21 weeks and still survived [2]. This means that you would have to consider an unborn human at 24 weeks (or possibly 21 weeks) a full-fledged member of humanity now, but 50 years ago the unborn at 24 weeks' gestation was not a full-fledged member of humanity. Obviously this makes no sense.His claim that my argument does not justify a non-viable fetus as a full-fledged human is ridiculous. My argument shows that we are full-fledged humans from fertilization, and his argument has not cast doubt on this in slightest.Regarding the embryologists, they do, indeed, consider the unborn to be full-fledged human life, as illustrated by my previous argument. His attempt to nit-pick the quotes by embryologists does nothing to undermine my case. From fertilization, the unborn are full-fledged members of the species Homo Sapiens.I'll offer a couple more."[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being." [3]"We talk of human development not because a jumble of cells, which is perhaps initially atypical, gradually turns more and more into a human, but rather because the human being develops from a uniquely human cell. There is no state in human development prior to which one could claim that a being exists with not-yet-human individuality. On the basis of anatomical studies, we know today that no developmental phase exists that constitutes a transition from the not-yet-human to the human." [4]There is no doubt that scientifically, the unborn from fertilization are full-fledged humans in a biological sense. If Con means they are not full-fledged humans in a morally relevant sense, he has not supported that contention, either. I have shown why viability fails to offer that distinction. In fact, pro-choice philosophers like Peter Singer support infanticide because of the simple fact that there is no morally relevant difference between an embryo/fetus and a newborn.Additionally, Con's analogies regarding the seed and egg fail. Saying an egg is not a chicken is like saying a womb is not a human. Of course it's not, but it's a part of the human. The womb contains the growing/developing human embryo, just as a chicken egg contains a growing/developing chicken embryo.Furthermore, a seed may not be a plant, but it is a developing plant, just as an embryo is a developing human (but still a human). In fact, human development doesn't stop after birth. So simply being in development does not mean a full-fledged human isn't present. Con would say that seed:plant as embryo:human, but this is a false analogy. It is more accurate to say that seed:plant as embryo:adult. Plants begin their lives as seeds, and humans begin their lives as embryos.Now, Con makes a quite elementary mistake of confusing parts with wholes. See, human life begins at fertilization. Sperm and eggs are parts of another human's body; they are not a part of the new human embryo. The sperm and egg cease to exist once the human is brought into existence. The new human embryo is a unique individual organism, one that has its own parts, and all the parts of the organism work for the good of the organism. The sperm and egg both exist solely to contribute genetic material to the new human that will be conceived, but they are not a part of the organism. It is simply incorrect to state that human life begins before fertilization, even though the process is begun before fertilization.Saying that society recognizes the beginning of human life is unconvincing. First, society could be wrong. Second, society doesn't recognize that life begins at birth. A man can kill a pregnant woman and her unborn child and be tried for double homicide, as in the recent case of Scott and Lacy Peterson. In fact, prior to Roe v. Wade, the unborn were persons legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. [5]So judging it based on society means that society can change the rules at their whim. But being a full-fledged member of humanity is not something that changes. You're either a full-fledge human or you're not.Premise 2My first two premises stand. Rape is an incredibly horrible act, and no woman should ever have to go through with it. But allowing her to abort the child would not cause her to forget the rape, and it would never take the pain away. In fact, in a civilized country, we do not allow the victim to punish the child of a criminal as retribution. But allowing abortion in the case of rape does just that. If a woman finds herself pregnant, the unborn child is a second victim, not the perpetrator. Why should the child pay with her life for the crimes of her father?Plus, as an abortionist points out, “Victims of sexual abuse and rape deserve special care. However, the abortion counselor should recognize that the emotional trauma experienced by the rape or incest victim cannot be treated adequately, if at all, in the abortion clinic setting. All rape and incest victims, as well as victims of physical abuse, should be referred for appropriate psychological counseling and support.” [6]Since abortions cannot currently be performed without killing the child, it is not morally justified to kill the child. Say you are out on your boat in the middle of the ocean, and you discover a stowaway. You are not justified in throwing the stowaway overboard and leave him to drown, even though he will be consuming your resources. You must wait until you get back to land to expel him from your boat.Premise 3I think Con here is mistaken about what abortions entail, and about my own words. I said abortion are most often the act of killing the embryo or fetus. This is because there are abortion pills, like RU-486, that merely prevent implantation. In that case, the embryo is not actively killed (but I would argue is still immoral). In all surgical abortions, you are actively killing the embryo. You are not simply removing and allowing to die (which is illegal, at least in the United States). However, even if you removed the embryo from the environment in which he must survive, you are still actively killing the embryo. This may change if artificial womb technology is ever developed, and the embryo can be safely removed and implanted into an artificial environment that she can survive.ConclusionI have successfully defended my argument. Con has not dismantled or refuted my argument at all. I look forward to our next round.[1] http://www.marchofdimes.com...[2] http://socyberty.com...;[3] Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.[4] Erich Blechschmidt, Brian Freeman, The Ontogenetic Basis of Human Anatomy: The Biodynamic Approach to Development from Conception to Adulthood, North Atlantic Books, 2004, p. 7.[5] Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p.22.[6] Dr. Warren Hern, Abortion Practice, p. 84.