Abortion and infanticide are morally equivalent.

I will rebut my opponents case, then defend my points mentioned in R1. "For abortion "rights": The fetus is not a person, and because of that, it cannot have rights. As it has no rights, the mother is free to abort it. This is basically what Mary Ann Warren, a pro-choice philosopher says. She defines "person" as a being that has" "Consciousness and the capacity to feel pain" Many researchers agree pain likely cannot be felt until around the seventh month of pregnancy, although some scientists disagree and a consensus has proven elusive. because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, it is difficult to know when pain can exist. One thing is for sure though, there is no capacity to feel pain when the fetus is just a zygote, there is no pain 1 week after conception, the brain didn't even develop yet. If you are going to define being a person as the ability to feel pain, than abortion would still be permissible before the fetus is able to feel pain, this does not hold true for infanticide, since the ability to feel pain is already there. "Against abortion: Fetuses will develop into persons that will have a meaningful future, a "Future Like Ours." Killing the fetus will end the FLO which is wrong, as FLOs are something of value." 1) This is known as the potential life argument. Potential life is not the same thing as actual life. Even if it is wrong to kill potential life, are you really willing to argue that it is just as morally wrong as killing actual life? Just because they are both morally wrong does not mean they are equally morally wrong EX: vandalism and murder are both wrong, but not equally morally wrong. 2) Are you kidding? Potential life/personhood is not the same thing as actual human life/personhood. By this logic, an FLO can exist before the fetus even exists. I probably have the potential right now to go out with some prostitute, and impregnate her. Should it be immoral not to? After all, by choosing not to impregnate a woman, I will be ruining the ruining the potential "FLOs" that can come forth from my impregnating the prostitute, heaven forbid. What about couples that choose not to have sex? should they be thrown into jail because they are ruining "FLOs" every day they don't have sex? By this logic, it should be immoral for me not to go around raping every woman I find simply because of myself ruining the potential FLOs that can come forth from my raping woman. It's simple: If I go around raping every woman in sight then i'm bound to impregnate some, and therefore will be giving FLOs!! Yay! "Infants are not persons under Warren's definition." 1)Yes they are. See your own definition: The ability to feel pain- Infants can feel pain, a zygote can't 2)I am not Warren, what does warren have to do with this? 3)I defined a person as a human with brain activity, that means an embryo is not a person, a fetus is. Your Jesus analogy is flawed on several counts: 1)The pain involved to save the dying man on the road is not equivalent to a bone marrow transplant. For example if someone was going to die, and only needed a drop of my blood to live, some would argue that I should be forced to give it to him based on the low level of pain involved to save one's life, although that's debatable at best too. However, a bone marrow transplant is much more painful to go through than a simple drop of blood. 2)Even if your analogy fits the bill, so what? Are you really willing to argue that watching someone die is morally equivalent to actively killing someone? They may both be immoral, but that doesn't mean that they are morally equivalent. Vandalism and Rape are both immoral, are they morally equivalent? No. Remember, you defined infanticide as "killing." Abortion can be performed simply by severing the umbilical cord, thus cutting off the flow of nutrients to the fetus, this is not active killing, this is letting one die. 3)(again) Level of pain man it's all about the LEVEL OF PAIN. If a woman was dying, and the only way I could save her was by chopping off one of my legs, am I morally obligated to do so? Clearly the level of pain is a great factor of consideration, and is also the reason your analogy if logically flawed. 9 months of pregnancy followed by labor, may not be equivalent to chopping off one of your limbs, but it's definitely more painful that the pain involved of saving a dying man on the street. Defending my own arguments: Your objection to the neutral argument is valid, next. "you say life begins when brain activity begins, maybe so, but this does not overcome two challenges. One, even though they have brain activity, infants are not persons, making their killing permissible, as they do not have rights." No…..read my argument again. I said "logically, the person hood of a human begins when brain activity begins." Human life begins when brain activity begins also, in addition to personhood. The fetus is not a person before brain activity. After brain activity begins, the fetus is a person. This is why killing an infant is morally wrong, yet killing a fetus before brain waves are recordable is fine. The logic is simple: A human looses his personhood when his brain activity stops. Therefore a human gains his personhood when brain activity begins. As for FLOs, I addressed them earlier. "Finally, you bring up the leeching argument, which I showed was wrong we have a moral obligation to help fellow man survive. I'll give another analogy. Say you're rock climbing, you make it to the top, but your buddy's rope snaps. You catch the rope, but you have to go to your wedding. If you wait for rescue, you'll miss the wedding. Even though your buddy is leeching your time, it is not permissible to let him fall and die so you can go to your wedding. The same goes for fetuses." It is very important to note here that just because two things are immoral, does not mean they are morally equivalent. For example, stealing is morally wrong, and murder is morally wrong. Are they morally equivalent? No. For example, imagine a hypothetical scenario if you will: A man needs a bone marrow transplant. Your bone marrow is the only bone marrow that he needs in order to survive. You only have two options: 1)Don't give your bone marrow and let the man die 2)Stab the man in the chest with a sword, effectively murdering him Of course, if you had to pick, you would choose option 1. Is it morally wrong? Maybe. But not nearly as morally wrong as committing murder. The same thing applies to abortion. Severing the umbilical cord and letting the fetus starve may be morally wrong, but It wont be AS morally wrong as killing someone. My opponent may argue that starving an infant would be morally equivalent to starving a fetus, however, this is not how my opponent defined infanticide, he defined infanticide as "killing" an infant. While in the case of abortion one can simply let the fetus die by a premature delivery, which is not as morally wrong as killing someone. Like I said, level of pain. In the case of the rock climber, the level of pain required to save him is not even close to enduring 9 months of pregnancy + labor. Let me modify your analogy: Try to imagine a hypothetical scenario. You are able to save a rock climber. However, in the process of grabbing the rope, your foot slips into a crevice. You now have two options: 1)Turn back with your leg still intact and let the rock climber die 2)Sever your leg from your body and save the climber, in this scenario, the damage to the leg will be repairable, but it will be VERY painful; 9 months of repair will have to take place each day the pain of repairing the leg grows. Due to the level of pain the person would have to endure, he should have the moral right to opt out simply because he does not want to handle the pain. The same applies to abortion. The level of pain involved for a complete pregnancy is greater than a bone marrow transplant.