Resolved: Abortion should be Illegal (Except in life threatening cases)

Burden of Proof for this debate is on PRO to establish that abortion ought to be illegal. I do not need to provide any positive arguments against the resolution. I only need to argue against PRO’s arguments. In other words, I only need to rebut PRO’s arguments, or at least show they don’t provide reason to believe the reason is true. That said, I will address PRO’s arguments. Rebuttals Argument 1 The fetus is a person. PRO provides quotes via abort73. com from a variety of “pro-choice” individuals. It is difficult to determine where the quotes end and PRO’s arguments end, but the basic argument here seems to be that because the fetus is a human being, it is a person; however, simply because the fetus is biologically the same as born children, that doesn’t mean that the fetus is of the same category of being as born children. “Life” as a biologically term can be applied to a wide variety of organisms. Biologists note seven characteristics of life. All living organisms: 1. Respond to the environment 2. Grow and develop 3. Produce offspring 4. Maintain homeostasis 5. Have complex chemistry 6. Consist of cells. Should a thing have these characteristics, biologists would say that thing is alive. This point is quite important. A plant is alive. Any random bacterium is alive. These things are living organisms. It cannot be disputed that at a purely biological level, a fetus is a living organism and that it belongs to the species Homo sapiens. The terminology that is used here is of vital import; there are key differences between an organism and a person. Rather, we consider there to be key differences between an organism and a person (whether there are or not is debatable). For example, we regularly wash off, and thus kill, thousands upon thousands of bacteria a day [3]. The fact that bacteria are alive doesn’t play any moral or legal role in our daily lives. Additionally, we eat fruits and vegetables (which are living organisms [1] [2]) and this is of no moral or legal relevance. Even vegans (who place moral value on the lives of all animals) eat fruits and vegetables. We recognize some key differences between animals and non-animals. However, it is a truism that non-animals and animals are alive. I will concede that the fetus is a member of the species Homo sapiens, however, there doesn’t seem to be any relevant connection between this biological fact and the legal status of abortion. At best, biology allows us to say a fetus is a person in development. Surely membership in the species Homo sapiens isn’t necessary and sufficient for personhood; this is blatant speciesism. It displays an unjustified bias, and on that basis alone, can be rejected. Argument 2 Future-like-ours (FLO) First and foremost, what is a future-like-ours? What is the group being referred to by the plural possessive pronoun “ours”? Additionally, who is the person doing the valuing of the future? There are a few issues with Marquis’ argument, as it is presented by this website. Marquis does note a very important aspect of our evaluation of killing (perhaps more appropriately, murder) as a moral wrong. From the website: “…what makes killing wrong in the first place? According to Marquis, killing is not wrong because it shows the killer to be barbaric nor because it leaves friends and relatives left behind saddened. Rather, killing is wrong primarily because of the effect it has on the victim. Killing deprives the victim of life. The loss of one’s life is the greatest possible loss anyone can suffer. It ‘deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future’… In Marquis’ own words: ‘When I am killed, I am deprived both of what I now value which would have been part of my future personal life, but also what I would come to value. ’…” (Emphasis mine) The author of the article makes note of some considerations. Among these considerations is Euthanasia: “it does not necessarily entail that euthanasia is wrong (since those who face an incurable future of pain would not lose a future of value)”. What is the basis for claiming the euthanized individual will not lose a future of value? “Euthanasia”, by definition, is assisted suicide, which means the individual in question desires to die, which means that they do not, at present, value their own future. In other words, it would not be wrong, under this criterion, to kill someone that wishes to die, because they do not value their future. However, a fetus necessarily cannot value its future. It seems, then, that what a “future-like-ours” would be is a future of things which we presently value. But a fetus can’t presently value anything, as it doesn’t have the capacity to value anything, any more than an apple or ant does. This argument doesn’t serve to establish the moral impermissibility of abortion, let alone provide reasons to make it illegal. Abortion Criminalization Keep in mind, this is a debate over the legal status of abortion (whether it ought to be legal or illegal) not over the moral status of abortion (whether it’s permissible or impermissible). For PRO’s arguments to get off the ground, he must first make a connection between the morally impermissible and the legally punishable, after which he must establish the morally impermissibility of abortion. It doesn’t seem to be necessarily the case that those things which are morally impermissible are illegal. Under some ethical systems (utilitarianism), killing animals for any reason other than self-defense is morally impermissible. Additionally, there are things with no moral content which are illegal (driving on the left side of the road in the United States). The Holocaust The key difference between the Holocaust, The American South, and personhood arguments for abortion is that the first two were based on unjustified biases. The skin tone or hair color of an individual doesn’t affect personhood. However, the ability of an individual to perceive themselves and recognize themselves as an entity over time, arguably, do affect personhood. Choosing to Have Intercourse I will not disagree with this claim. It is true that women choose to have sex. However, there are those couples who do as much as they can to prevent pregnancy, short of not having intercourse, and still end up conceiving. To consent to having intercourse is not to consent to pregnancy. As such, you are in fact forcing the woman to give birth. The only available options are don't have sex or have children, as conception is not a choice. Closing Remarks I have addressed all of PRO’s arguments, or rather, all of the arguments PRO quoted from abort73. com. I hope PRO will provide some better arguments in the coming rounds. I look forward to your response! [1] . http://www.ck12.org... [2] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [3] . http://www.foodscience.caes.uga.edu...