Abortion is wrong

My opponent has made the claim that "killing a fetus is murder," and attempted to justify that claim with a number of well-worn, but still quite invalid, assertions. I will show why these are invalid, and why abortion per se is not at all "wrong" and should by no means be considered "murder" - that it is a difficult choice for anyone to make is certainly true enough, but the right to make that choice needs to remain with the individual and must be protected by our society's legal system. My opponent makes numerous comparisons of the fetus to other individuals who clearly could not be legally or morally killed: e.g., "you would not kill your friend if you could not take care of him," or the question of what you would do if "you saw a baby alone, on a dark cold night..." But no reason is given as to just why we should consider the fetus, especially in the early stages of pregnancy, as the moral equivalent of a friend or a baby. We are told that humans are "sentinel beings," and the claim is made that the fetus is also "sentinel" and "can think." Assuming that the intended word here was "sentient," making this claim for the fetus is highly questionable. We should note that the unborn is not technically referred to as a "fetus" until approximately 8th-10th week of pregnancy (prior to this, it is an "embryo"), but even at this point it is approximately an inch and a quarter long and weighs perhaps 4 or 5 grams. By the 14th week, average fetal mass is perhaps 40-45 grams, about the same as a first-class letter - and roughly the same as the brain mass of, say, an ostrich. The mass of the fetal brain alone is, of course, considerably less, comparable to that of a large rodent (but, of course, the fetal brain at this point is considerably less defined and developed than the adult rat's). So if the fetus is alleged to "think," at least up to this point (well into the second trimester), it's rather hard to imagine what it's thinking WITH. There is simply no evidence of sufficient brain development or organization to support anything that could be remotely considered "sentience" until a very good deal later. My opponent also makes the assertion that the fetus "has a nervous system," a cerbral cortex, and "brain waves are being sent out" by the end of the first month of development. This is a myth which has been presented as fact by any number of anti-abortion groups, but the reality is quite different. The claims are based on the misinterpretation of several medical research papers, and the errors of these claims are detailed here: http://eileen.250x.com... Note in particular that the only claim which can be supported by the cited research is that fetal brain-stem cells are shown to be alive and functioning at approximately 70 days into the fetal development - but that this is a far cry from "brain waves," and is no more significant in terms of the development of a conscious mind than noting the functioning of muscle cells through similar electrical signals. That the fetus is "alive" and is of the human species cannot be denied, but then the same can be said of any of the cells of my body. They live, they can reproduce (for instance, a culture of cells grown in a medical laboratory), and they are clearly "human" in nature. But we do not consider the disposal of a petri dish containing cultured liver cells, for instance, to be "murder." The fetus is undeniably a POTENTIAL human being, but so is any cell from which the genetic material required for cloning could be obtained. The question is not whether or not the fetus is genetically human, but whether it warrants moral consideration as a PERSON. But, we are told, the fetus has "unique DNA." If this, though, is the defining quality of a person, we would have to consider identical twins to be only one person. We do not, so there must be something more to "personhood" than simply having one's own unique set of genes. My opponent concludes with the unfortunately all-too-typical and ludicrous comparison of abortion rights to the ethics of Nazi Germany. Complete nonsense, and a desperate attempt at a "guilt by association" argument. The facts speak for themselves; no evidence whatsoever has been given to suggest that the fetus, especially during the first trimester (which is the period in which abortion cannot be restricted by the state, per Roe v. Wade), is worthy of moral or legal consideration as a person, and no justification has been given for the state interfering in what clearly must remain a very personal decision.