A Fetus is Not Morally Equivalent to a Mature Human

Perhaps by focung narrowly, we can achieve clarity. We'll try. More DefinitionsAt the moment of conception the fetus, as defined for his debate, is a single cell, called a zygote. For about five days thereafter it is a floating spherical mass of cells called a blastocyst that may eventually attach to the placenta to develop. . http://www.nlm.nih.gov... My arguments will apply to these early stages of development in which the fetus has no nervous system, no brain, and no sense organs. It is incapable of thought, pain, sensation, or cognition. "Moral equivalence" was not defined in the opening round. I think moral equivalence means, "properly considered to have equal rights and privileges. " 1. Self-awareness is essential to moral equivalence. Let's start with what seems like a foolish question. Is a rock morally equivalent to a fully developed human? Obviously not, but why not? It is not merely that the rock is not human. can imagine types of space aliens who, while not human, share human perceptions human ethics and would merit being said morally equivalent. A rock fails at the start: it is not self-aware, so it is not a "being" and cannot be morally equivalent to a mature human being. The property of self-awareness has been long recognized as essential: "This sense of self is critical to our status as persons. In fact, philosophers often use the terms self and person interchangeably: a capacity for self-awareness is necessary for full personhood. One has a sense of self if one is able to entertain first-person thoughts, and if one possesses first-person knowledge. " Handbook of self and identity (pp. 68-90). New York: Guilford Press, 2002. . http://socrates.berkeley.edu...The resolution does not distinguish between a live mature human and a dead mature human. The resolution doesn't need to specify because we all know that it would be ridiculous to suppose that a dead mature human was morally equivalent to a live one. Why is it ridiculous? The dead human has all the DNA and other attributes, but it unquestionably self awareness.2. The life of the mother is more important than that of the fetusThere is controversy over how often abortions are necessary to save the life of the mother, but there are some circumstances when it is clearly necessary. For example, one case a mother having a weak heart would have certainly died in childbirth. . http://www.swimmingkangaroo.com...In these cases, the life of the mother is universally placed above that of the fetus. This means that no one, or almost no one, considers the lives morally equivalent. So, does such universal agreement prove that they are not morally equivalent? It does, because while we cannot decide the shape of the earth by an opinion poll, morally reflects human nature. While there are many moral disagreements, we be assured that near-universal agreement on the immorality of things like murder and theft means those, at least, are features of natural law. 3. Early spontaneous abortions are universally ignoredAbout 60% of zygotes do not survive to term. ". .. up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among those women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%. " . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...No one considers spontaneous abortion of zygotes or blastocysts as morally significant. Generally no one knows they happen, and no one thinks it important to find out. If mature humans are lost in, say, mountain climbing accidents or airline crashes in remote areas, serious attempts are made to find the remains so that they can be given funerals and honored according the tradition of their families. Yet, no heroic attempts are made using modern science to locate spontaneously aborted zygotes so they can be given proper funerals. There is no demand for microscopic caskets or burial plots. The reason is that they are not morally equivalent to mature humans, and that is universally recognized.4. Perception and memory count in determining moral equivalenceAre all mature humans morally equivalent? Suppose some sci-fi scenario in which a choice must be made to either save the life of an active fully-functioning adult and an adult who has lost all memories and sensations. In theory, these attributes might be determined with a brain scan. If they are morally equivalent, then a coin flip would be a good method of choosing which to save. If they are morally equivalent, the random outcome of a coin flip avoids an bias in which to choose. The rational choice, however, is to choose to save the person who is fully functioning as a person over the one who is not functioning. They are not equivalent. A zygote is the extreme case of a non-functionality. It has no memory or sensations. The lack of functionality is a reasonable basis for moral inequality. Some religions place a very high value on certain trees. They may deem a sacred tree to be morally equivalent to a mature human. To deem is legalese meaning that something is acted upon as true, even though it isn't true. For example, a special decree might deem a foreigner to be a citizen eve though he is not. He would then be treated to the rights of citizenship even though he doesn't deserve them according to the ordinary rules of citizenship. Thus a religion may deem a tree morally equivalent to a human, but the lack of functionality of the tree compared to a human makes it unreasonable to so. Similarly, a religion might deem a zygote morally equivalent to a mature human, but the lack of functionality means it is not equivalent in fact. Just as there might be good reasons to deem a foreigner to be a citizen, there might be good reasons to deem a zygote to be morally equivalent. For example, so deeming might increase respect for mature life or acting if it were true might help repopulate a country devastated by war. However, it is nonetheless not true in fact. A fetus is not morally equivalent to a mature human.