Abotion should be legal

I will begin by stating my argument against abortion, and then respond to my opponent's points. To clarify, I will be arguing that abortion should not be legal, apart from cases where it is a necessary medical procedure in order to save the life of the mother. Why abortion should be illegal My argument is as follows: Premise 1: Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human foetus Premise 2: A human foetus is alive, and so therefore a human foetus is a living human being Premise 3: It is not morally justified to remove the life of a human being Premise 4: Only that which is morally justified should be legal Conclusion: Abortion should not be legal Now I will support my premises: Premise 1 Abortion is defined as: 'Expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception before the fetus is viable.' (1) We know, due to the definition of 'viable' in this context, that this procedure will necessarily kill the foetus. Therefore, abortion is the deliberate killing of a human foetus. Premise 2 First I will affirm that a foetus is alive, then I will use this conclusion to affirm that a human foetus is a human being. Life is defined as: 'The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death' (2) Foetuses grow and are subject to continual change preceding death (3). They have the capacity for reproduction given time to develop naturally. Furthermore, to suppose that a foetus is not alive is to either state that a foetus is dead or inanimate. It is not dead because something must have once lived in order to be dead, and it is not inanimate (4). Therefore, a human foetus is alive. All life is characterised into species (5), and as we have affirmed that a human foetus is alive we must also accept that it must belong to a particular species. A human foetus's genetic makeup is most similar to the genetic makeup of the species homo sapiens and so a human foetus is human (which perhaps goes without saying, as if it was not human then we would not refer to it as a human foetus). Therefore, a human foetus is human. Therefore, a human foetus is a human life, which is to say that it is a living human being. Premise 3 To say that it is not morally justified to remove the life of a human being is to say that we ought not to kill human beings. There are many reasons why I am justified in asserting this moral truth: Rule Utilitarian approach - Having a rule stating 'do not kill human beings' will result in a greater amount of happiness than the absence of such a rule, therefore this it is moral to abide to this rule. Deontologist approach - Killing of a human being is wrong because it is a maxim that cannot be universalised; no rational human being would freely consent to live in a society that permitted the killing of human beings. Evolutionist approach - Permitting the killing of human beings is evolutionarily disastrous, for obvious reasons. The killing of human beings is not morally justified according to the vast majority of normative ethical theories. If my opponent disagrees and argues that killing of human beings is justified (aside from cases of self-defence), then she will have the burden of proof, as she is making the positive claim that killing of human beings is morally justified. Therefore, it is not morally justifiable to remove the life of a human being. Premise 4 Although it seems pretty common-sensical that only morally justifiable actions should be legal, I will analyse it under the main normative ethical theories in order to demonstrate why only morally justifiable actions should be legal. Rule Utilitarian approach - Having a rule stating 'legally permit immoral actions' will result in a lesser amount of happiness than a rule saying 'legally prohibit immoral actions', therefore this it is moral to abide to the rule that we should not legally permit immoral actions. Deontologist approach - Legally permitting immoral actions is wrong because it is a maxim that cannot be universalised; no rational human being would freely consent to live in a society that permitted immoral actions. Evolutionist approach - Permitting immoral actions will create a society where immoral actions are prevalent, this will negatively effect the quality of our offspring and so it is not evolutionarily beneficial. I assume that my opponent agrees with premise 4, but if not, the above analysis verifies it. Therefore, only that which is morally justifiable should be legal. As I have now asserted the veracity of all my premises, the conclusion deductively follows. Therefore, abortion should not be legal. Argument from Consistency In order to hold a rational moral assertion, it must be consistent. So, in order to be rational, we must abide by the maxim: 'Treat someone as we would consent to be treated if we were in the same situation as that someone.' An example of moral inconsistency would be stating: 'I am morally justified in throwing sticks at my mother, but I would not consent to having sticks thrown at me if I was in the same situation as my mother'. I argue that abortion is inconsistent according to these terms. To assert that abortion is morally justified is to be morally inconsistent, as it is equivalent to saying: 'I am morally justified in killing a human foetus, but I would not consent to being killed if I was a human foetus.' Unless, of course, the pro-abortionist would consent to being killed if they were a human foetus, but I highly doubt they would be serious in holding this conviction. This becomes especially prevalent because it is not hypothetical, as everyone was once a foetus and so nobody can be exempt from the consistency criteria. As asserting the moral permissibility of abortion is inconsistent, it is an irrational moral belief. It is absurd to suggest that actions should be legalised if one cannot be rational in supporting them, so abortion should not be legal. I will now respond to all my opponent's arguments within the character limit I have. 'Abortion is about allowing woman the right to make choices about when they want to have children in relation to their age, financial stability & relationship stability. It is the not the place of government to legislate against woman's choices.' It is definitely the government's choice to legislate against women's choices if the choice harms another human being, as abortion does. It would be odd to suggest that the government should not legislate against murder simply by virtue of the fact that a woman chose to commit it. 'Raising a child is not an easy task & requires social & emotional commitment coupled with financial resources. As such if a person feels they are not ready for a child, it means the pregnancy is unwanted & resultant allowing a fetus to grow into a child is worse than abortion since the resultant child will grow in a non conducive & destructive environment without the love, care & stability that a child needs.' 'Abortion prevent unwanted & unplanned pregnancies which prevents child neglect since the mother does not want to have children at that moment in time.' I agree, but this is a false dichotomy. A baby can be put up for adoption at birth, so it is not a choice between abortion and raising a child. 'Those see it morally allowable to do abortion should be provided with the means to do so & those who don't believe in abortion should have the choice not to have an abortion' This statement has very strange implications, as it implies that anyone should be allowed to do something so long as they believe that they are morally justified in doing so. Yet this would mean that we should allow murderers who believe that their actions are morally justified to commit murder. 'A fetus is not legally or scientifically a person or human being so abortion cannot be equated to murder or taking a life since the fetus is not a person nor alive.' See premise 2 of my initial argument. 'A fetus is like a brain dead person with no self awareness or consciousness so it is actually dead.' Definition of dead: 'Having lost life' (6). A foetus has never lost its life (irrespective of whether it ever had life) and so cannot be dead. 'Prohibiting abortions doesn't stop abortions, women would simply seek abortions via illegal means which are unsafe & illegal, so it is better to provide woman with safe & legal ways to do an abortion.' If one freely chooses to murder their foetus then they are, to some extent, forfeiting their protection. Let me suppose an analogy; legalising burglary would make burglaries much safer for burglars, yet this is hardly a valid justification for legalising burglary. The same applies with abortion. I agree that prohibiting abortion does not stop abortions altogether, but it reduces them significantly. In 1969 (when legal abortion facilities were implemented) there were 53643 abortions compared to 21400 when abortion was illegal in 1966 (7). This is 32243 abortions that were caused by the legalisation of abortion. I have run out of characters now, but I will finish rebutting my opponent's arguments in round 2. (1)http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (2)http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... (3)http://www.babycentre.co.uk... (4)http://www.webmd.boots.com... (5)http://en.wikipedia.org... (6)http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (7)http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...