Abortion is Murder

My argument 1. The unborn is a human being. (Con agrees) 2. Abortion is the premeditated killing of a human being. (Con agrees) 3. Murder is the morally unjustified, premeditated killing of a human being. (Con disagrees and argues that murder is the killing of a “person” and claims that the unborn is not a person) 4. Abortion is murder. Human Beings Have the Right to Life This alone proves my argument. All human beings have the intrinsic right to life. Con made a false claim when he stated that, “being a human being cannot be a sufficient condition for having a right to life. We require something in addition to being a human being to have right to life.” Con’s life is automatically protected by the law for the simple fact that he is a human being, not because he meets the criteria of personhood, which are pretty much functional capabilities. Every human being, regardless of size, level of development, location, degree of dependency, or functional capabilities are granted the right to life. Aliens are irrelevant to the discussion. First of all, we don’t know any aliens, and second, the debate is about HUMAN society. http://www.lifesitenews.com... That is an article about an anencephalic baby who at age 1 and a half, is “very much alive, quite healthy, and responds to family members.” Even anencephalic babies, being human beings, have the right to live. And even those who disagree that they should be sustained as long as possible, it would not be a matter of personhood, It would be to relieve suffering, pain and hardships of that HUMAN BEING. This proves even further that human life is what we value, not Con's arbitrary view of personhood. Personhood Con argues that the unborn do not have the right to life since they are not persons. Con gave us a philosopher’s list of criteria for personhood, which are based on what the human being is functionally capable of. 1. The unborn meets 1,3 and 5. I would also add 4 to that, the unborn can communicate in their own way. Studies on prenatal stimulation proves that the unborn meets these criteria. Its odd that Con thinks that, “it isn't obvious that they [people who are comatose or under general anesthesia] do lose those characteristics [personhood] while in a coma or knocked out. They might be present but to a lesser extent.” but he claims to know for sure that the unborn has absolutely no characteristics of personhood. In a National Geographic video, In the Womb: Multiples, it talks about twins in the womb and it says, "As identical twins grow bigger, they're almost always in contact, touching hands, faces, feet and gradually becoming more aware of themselves and each other." The video also talks says, "The fetus behaves in a much more complex way than previously imagined... During her odyssey in the womb she will smile, recognize her mother's voice and maybe even dream."(1) 2. The unborn is already in the process of fully developing these “person traits”. Con argues that the capacity or potential to develop into a person is not sufficient to grant the right to life. He said, “we are literally murdering potential persons by not having sex at every possible opportunity.” a. There is big difference between a potential NON EXISTENT human being and an ALREADY living, developing human being, who is already in the process of further developing all the traits of “personhood”. b. There’s no such thing as a passive murder. Choosing to not reproduce and create life is not the same as terminating life. c. Abortion is an ACTIVE process of killing human life and STOPPING the ongoing development of that being’s personhood. 3. There are cases where a full grown human being can not meet Con’s personhood criteria, yet they are granted the right to life. Con said that comatose people and those who are under general anesthesia already met the requirements of personhood prior to the vegetative state. So what? If Con wants to claim that personhood starts when the criteria is met, then personhood ends when the criteria is no longer met. This means that those who are no longer persons according to Con’s criteria, no longer has the right to life. I also mentioned premature infants. An infant who had to be surgically delivered at 20 weeks of gestation is not a person then? Or does it become a person because its no longer in the womb? They are not persons according to Con's criteria. It should not be considered murder to kill premature babies then. 4. On what authority does Con make these criteria for personhood and make distinctions between persons and non-persons? It's not Con is committing an appeal to authority, The problem is that Con’s criteria is totally subjective. What stops anyone from adding, subtracting or changing the requirements to be a person? Why should we accept Con’s philosophy that not all human beings deserve the right to live? I for one reject it. The biblical philosophy rejects it. Other secular philosophies reject it. Each have their reasons for it, so which view is right? Con's personhood argument basically says that only human beings that are more developed have the right to life. On what ground should we accept that a human life that is early in its development is not worthy of the same rights and privileges as one that is more developed? It is my view that all human beings have an inherent personal nature, and are therefore all persons. What Abortion Really Is Con accused me of the strawman fallacy when I pointed out that a lot of pro-abortions like to mention rare cases like rape to help their case. First, I did not say that Con used the argument at all. I used statistical facts to show what abortion is really about. Abortion is about avoiding a self caused inconvenience, through horrific means (killing). Con says that it is irrelevant that 93% of abortion is done for convenience since the debate is whether embryos and fetuses have the right the life or not. He misses the point of the Nazi analogy. Does it matter that Hitler was just a crazy racist tyrant who just wanted the Jews eliminated? Is the real issue whether the Jews are human are not? The fact that Hitler was a crazy racist, and the fact that abortions are primarily done to avoid the consequence of screw ups, are not only relevant, they are the reasons for the arguments. They are what the arguments are trying to justify. The point is that the whole “personhood” argument and all other pro-abortion arguments have the same underlying motives as the Nazi’s argument that Jews are not human beings. They are concocted ad hoc, to provide moral frameworks to justify the killing of innocent HUMAN LIVES for selfish reasons. Pro-Choice Con said that not all pro-choicers are abortionists, which is true, and that most want abortions to decrease, but that the freedom to choose is the rational view. Women should have the freedom to choose to kill a human life based on what the human can do functionally? That’s rational? There is nothing wrong with abortion according to Con, but he wants it to decrease, why? Supporting abortion will only make it more acceptable and increase the number of abortions done. The woman (and man) had a choice and they chose to fulfill their desires by having sex. Their choice had consequences and so should choosing to murder. Conclusion Con could not provide a rational basis to justify the killing of, what he accepts, unborn human lives. He erroneously claimed that personhood is what we value not human life and his personhood argument is subjective, unwarranted and very problematic. God created each of us in His image. The Bible says that God formed our inward parts and knitted us together in our mother’s womb. Abortion is murder. All arguments for it are nothing but asinine reasoning for justifying killing innocent children to avoid the consequences of people’s selfish and irresponsible actions. Speak for the weak!Thank you. Sources (1) In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005