Resolved: Elective abortion is prima facie morally permissible

Thank you for challenging me to this debate. It is a thrill to (finally) be debating with you again. With permission from freeman, I will be utilizing some of his information, though not all of it. My opening argument is a rebuttal and a defense for the morality of abortion, along with the Prima facia morality of abortion. My opponent and I agreed to change the definition of elective abortion to "Induced termination of pregnancy, usually before the fetus has developed enough o live if born, deemed necessary by the woman carrying it and performed at her request." [1]==Opening Arguments==1) It is not always wrong to kill an innocent human being.My opponent would have us believe that, "[O]n the face of it, it's morally wrong to kill another human being. Prima facia, it's morally wrong for me to grab a gun, walk up to a random stranger and murder him. Reason why I note it's prima facia is because not all killing is morally wrong. Such as killing done in self defense, or when one goes to war. There's no reason why anyone should consider abortion as an act of self defense and prudence obliges us to assume that it is a human in the absence of any good reasons to think otherwise. Intuitively, abortion is prime facia wrong." This is false and an incorrect premise. My opponent wants us to believe that there is no reason why anyone should consider abortion an act of self defense. However, there are moral grounds, and in certain circumstances, it should be considered moral to allow for an abortion. For example, if the mother's life is at risk, it is obviously NOT Prima facia wrong for the woman to have an abortion. Moreover, in the case of rape, it is Prima facia morally permissible to the woman to have an abortion. In fact, it is arguable that denying the woman a right to abortion in the case of a pregnancy is morally wrong.2) A fetus does not qualify as a person.In her essay, The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Warren suggests five (5) criteria for a being to be qualified as a person that is protected morally and under the law:1) Consciousness;2) Reasoning;3) Self-motivated activity; 4) Capacity to communicate; and5) Presence of self-concepts/self-awareness [2].It is a fact that a 7-8 month old fetus has none of the above criteria [3], hence they cannot have a serious right to life and it is not Prima facia wrong to abort the potential child. The Stone professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy at Dartmouth College, Baenard Gert, explained how simply being alive does not have inherent value itself. It is, rather, the ability to have conscious experience for the world that it important [4]. As demonstrated earlier, the moral principle can be recognized the way humans rightfully differentiate between fully conscious adults and those who have experienced a permanent loss of consciousness in brain death. Hence, it is within the Prima facia that it is not morally wrong to kill a fetus. This is why murdering most grown adults is wrong, whereas killing a fetus is not. However, I ask my opponent, if the adult did not have a conscious, and was a vegetable so to speak, how can that being have a serious right to life?3) A fetus is not physically independent.A fetus is dependent upon the mother to provide the womb in efforts for the fetus to survive. If it were to be outside of the womb for even a short period of time, then the fetus will die. Throughout the gestation of the zygote-embryo-fetus and the mothers' body are symbiotically linked through the umbilical cord. What the mother does affects the fetus. Likewise, when things go wrong with the fetus, it does affect the mother. To further demonstrate this point, I wish to offer the "violinist argument." Philosopher Judith Thomas demonstrated a scenario in which a woman is kidnapped and wakes to find that she has been surgically attached to a world-famous violinist, who, for 9 months, needs her body to survive. After those 9 months, the violinist can survive just fine on his own, but he must have this particular woman in order to survive until then. Is the woman morally obligated to stay connected to the violinist who is living off her body? [5] By no means.Thus, my argument can be considered the following:(P1) It is not Prima facia wrong to kill a non-human being.(P2) A fetus is not a human being.(C) Therefore, it is not Prima facia wrong to have an abortion.==Rebuttals==My opponent's arguments can be summed up as followed: The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community It is prima facia morally wrong to kill any member of that community Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facia morally wrong | Conclusion |As I have demonstrated, an unborn entity is not a full-fledged member of the human community, it is not always prima facia morally wrong to kill a member of that community, and every successful abortion is not always prima facia morally wrong.Thanks.Reference[1] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com.........[2] Warren, Mary Anne. The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. 1973. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. Vol. 57. La Salle, Illinois: The Monist, 1973. pp. 97-105. [3] http://spruce.flint.umich.edu... [4] Gert, Bernard. Common Morality: Deciding What to Do. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. p. 30.[5] http://www.elroy.net...