abortion early in the pregnancy can be rationally justified, but morality is eye of beholder

First let me apologize for missing Round 2 of the debate, I was preparing a reply when I was sidetracked for Christmas. Consequently these are the closing remarks, so I shall mostly restate my argument, attempt to answer dairygirl4u2c's concerns, and to demonstrate that although this debate missed round 2 for reasons of the holidary, it should be inconsequential to the debate results because of the weaknesses inherent in dairygirl's arguments. ~~~~ At the end of her comments, Dairygirl reminds us: >Any differences of opinion we might have, it seems, would be an inherent value judgment call, and tehre's not much more to discuss. First, we are not discussing, but debating. But yes, the question is the value of the life of the child. Dairygirl has not presenting any other method of estimating the value of the life, or the expected loss incurred by the abortion, than the one I present. My argument is, and has been, this: If we as a society are to weigh the value of life to all persons in making decisions, then we must also consider the value of the life of the possible person inside the mother's womb. According to basic logical principles of measuring value, then... (probability of life)*(value of life) + (probably of will-be life)*(value of will-be life) = estimated value of the fetus Hence, from a utilitarian perspective, the question becomes whether or not the estimated value of the fetus is greater than, equal to, or less than, the resultant consequences to the mother. estimated value of the fetus =,>,< value of avoiding consequences to the mother My assertion, however, is this: value of life = infinite or value of life => infinite Such that even the slightest possibility of life indicates a value to the child that is greater than the consequences of a refused abortion to the mother. ~~~~ But dairygirl begins her response by questioning my opinion of her argument: >reasonable versus rational. I'm not sure how you're distinguishing them. You hint it might be reasonable, but not rational. how can that be? Or, you mean it's reasonable belief, but not rational implementation to have abortion friendly laws. The later I will address more. Am I understanding you> Simply put, I believe dairygirl's belief in early abortions to be reasonable for a person to hold who has not examined the full rationality of the situation. But this opinion is irrelivent to the main thrust of the rational debate. The thrust of which, dairygirl inadequately addresses, asserting: >The mother's loss of choice, though, is a definite loss, and the loss of the person is not concrete. >If no liberty, there's no life. >But, the liberty to decide that issue, I think, could reasonably be set for the mother. If the child dies, then, at least there was the liberty to decide given taht it is valued less than life. >I acknowledge the society can have a say, but, I'm simply saying if it says the laws are arbortion friendly it's rational, not that it's analogous completely to areas where it can obviously exist. >Now, personally I would outlaw it all, because of my concurrance that we should defer completely. My title was misleading in that vein. I was only saying a society that has it legal would be a rational society, in my view. >I also think incidentally that you could be personally against abortion but allow people to decide for themselves, but only if you don't think it's certainly a person and are using the freedom issue. You use your freedom to not abort, but you respect the other person's freedom to choose themself. This is reasonable, and so rational in implementation as a law. But all of the above statements are a repeat and clarification of a statement from Round 1. >*i think it's reasonable to think reasonably disputed life can be valued less than the freedom to choose.* And none of these statements in any way provide justification for the implied assumption of her claim: right to choose abortion > value of life to society Now, it can be argued that I have given no justification for my argument that: value of life => infinite However, this is irrelivent. That life has great value is universally uncontested, and "great value" is enough to address her arguments. But while the "right to choose" has great value, the right to make a specific choice has very little. Value of Life (?) Liberty Value of Life >>> A Very Specific Choice Therefore, in two rounds of debate, dairygirl has presented no substantiation for her claims that a government can rationally legalize abortion. That my absence for the Christmas holiday prevented a third is consequently irrelivent.