Abortion is morally acceptable

"Wow, you're an excellent debater! I reckon I'm a bit out of my league here, so bear with me on this." Why thank you :) "I agree, life is a human right--the right of a viable human. Should we give the right to life to something that has no interest in living, or indeed any idea what life itself is? As soon as the baby's brain is developed enough to be able to process simple things, like the want of comfort and the want to survive, then that baby should be given the right to life, but prior to that, it has no more concern for living than a plant." An important fundamental of human rights is that one does not need to be aware of them to be entitled to them. For example a slave born into slavery probably would not know that they have the human right to freedom, but that does not justify their owner continuing to enslave them. I would also argue that a born baby also is not consciously aware of life; I certainly didn"t when I was that age. In short, personal ignorance of one"s rights does not remove one"s rights "Life does have intrinsic value, but sometimes the extent of that value can be negotiable. For example, we value cattle enough to raise them and give them the essentials to live a content existence, but ultimately that cow is to be sent to the slaughterhouse and sold as food so other people can enjoy it. Life is an important and cherished thing, but there are circumstances in which in order to preserve the quality of life for people, compromises need to be made about other creatures. But I am guessing that this statement was only meant to apply to humans, which is a different matter altogether. Human life and the taking thereof is not a matter that should be taken lightly, which is what you inferred would happen if abortion was legalized with your statement, "...if we held human life to only hold instrumental value then society would collapse." I disagree with the whole idea that legalizing abortion would make human life "instrumental," but just because something is regarded as instrumental does not mean it is unimportant or something to just be thrown away. Cows are regarded as instrumental for humans to get food, but this does not make it okay for people to just go around killing every cow they see just because cows are not necessary in a society. The very definition of the word instrumental states, "Very important in helping or causing something to happen or be done." It doesn't mean that something is valueless or pointless--quite the opposite, actually. Although I will acquiesce, human life is not something that should be merely instrumental." I apologise, that was an oversight in my argument. I meant to say that "human life has intrinsic value". However, when explaining my premise, I wasn"t saying that abortion would cause human life to be held instrumentally, but simply that it is immoral to hold human life instrumentally in general. Having established that, it then follows that abortion is holding human life instrumentally and therefore wrong. "I want to focus on the second portion of that statement: "It is immoral...to negate human rights." It says, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that all people have the right to liberty, privacy and security of person. Forcing a woman to carry a child--and what's more, an unwanted child she is usually unable to care for--is a violation of her rights. It is violating her privacy, as the state should not be involved with the bodies of any citizen; it is violating her liberty, as it is restricting her from her ability to carry on with her life unhindered (and generally pregnancy/a child is a very big hindrance in a person's life if she is not prepared, especially if that person is economically unstable or just beginning a prospering career); and it is violating her security of person, as it is forcing her to carry through with an uncomfortable, physically stressing pregnancy, and could even possibly damage her mentally if the child was a product of rape. Now, I agree it is immoral to negate human rights, but forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child directly goes against said rights." Abortion can be seen as a "conflict of rights" insofar as it asks the question: "which human right is more fundamental; freedom and security, or life?" I would argue that the right to life is more important than the right to freedom and security, I could analyse such a dilemma under deontology and utilitarianism and I would probably conclude that it is more moral to value the right to life over the right to freedom and not the other way round. On a social level, every single country in the world punishes murder more severely than the negation of freedom and security, this would suggest that the right to life is more important than the right to freedom and security. "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and any philosophies that may be related to the preservation of life should only apply to viable humans (i.e., humans that have the ability to think intelligently)." Wait a second, you"re now saying that only humans who can think intelligently have a right to life? That would imply that I would be justified to kill babies, dementia patients and mentally retarded people. You admitted earlier that it is moral to hold human life intrinsically, and so therefore it is moral to value human life regardless of its ability to think intelligently.