Abortion

I thank Con for the quick reply. C1: I would actually disagree with every one of these premises. A1: There are plenty of cases where murdering a human is largely considered morally correct. For example, self defense. Or, again, if person X is planning to kill persons A, B, and C. Feel free to dispute this. A2: Here we get into a definition of personhood. Since Con is only arguing abortion in the absolute, I can make the argument quite a bit easier by going earlier in the pregnancy where the acceptability of abortion is much clearer. For example, 4 weeks into the pregnancy the fetus is essentially unrecognizable. It has none of the features that would resemble a human [1]. Brain development doesn't even begin until the 7th week, and there is no heart beat [2]. Arguing that abortion is wrong in the absolute fails to acknowledge shades of grey in fetal development. By weeks 1-5 there is quite little - no brain, no heart, none of the common bodily forms. E1: The link unfortunately did not direct me to an article, but rather a general website linking lots of articles. E2: This is linguistic folly. Is an acorn an oak tree because it has the potential to be one? Simply the potential to become X does not make me X. It would be silly for me to describe myself as an old man, or even dead. C2: Here you just list negative qualities. There are a number of people who have had abortions who do not regret the decision at all (like Chelsea Handler), and as a result are more independent and can lead freer lives as a result of that act. Regardless, the emotional consequences of an act should not lead one to reject the ability to do that act whatsoever. Gambling or fighting a war may have some degree of negative qualities listed but it plays no role in whether such an action should be allowed. Con cites studies that are scientifically controverial, and not entirely morally relevant to the issue at hand. Numerous sources, including the US National Cancer Institute label the link as complete falsehood and junk science [3]. Regardless, I don't believe that harm that one does to oneself makes an action morally wrong. Imagine a person walks into a nuclear powerplant and gets radiation poisoning - is this morally wrong? Con's logic is questionable here. C3: Perhaps there are cases where the woman "ought to" follow through, but I believe this point is far outweighed by others, namely the right that a woman has over her body. Don't forget the large physical strain that pregnancy can have. Arguments For The Right to an Abortion 1. A Woman Has a Moral Right to Her Body The Violinist - Judith Thomson made a strong case against abortion in her paper "A Defense of Abortion" and puts forth the following example: "You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. ... To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." This is specifically applied to the case of rape, but this should be no problem as Con seems to be arguing that abortion is wrong in the definitive. Thomson even grants "personhood" to the fetus in this example. The fact is that by no choice of your own this person is now attached to you and severely infringing on your freedom and health. This situation is inherently unjust as it negatively effects the woman in numerous ways and violates her rights. Moreover, in the earlier stages the fetus is hardly anything but a clump of cells. Regardless, this example shows that the "right to life" has its limits once it begins infringing on the sovereignty of others. Instead of an inalienable "right to life" a more realistic term would be "the right not to be killed unjustly." What if a pregnancy lasted 9 years instead of 9 months? Does the "right to life" still apply? 2. The Fetus May Pose a Direct Harm to the Mother (Self Defense) Granted that the mother is a fully sentient being, and full member of a moral community it is clear that her life should take preference over something which is not fully sentient and can lack essentially every definition of personhood. The mother, like any other human being, has a right to self defense and if the fetus is seriously endangering her health and well being it is acceptable to use that right. [1] http://www.babycenter.com... [2] http://brainmind.com... [3] http://www.cancer.org...