Abortion Should be illegal

1. You say we're speaking about legal obligations right now not moral ones. Then this debate is easy. Abortion is legal in the US right now. Our conversation is now over. That wasn't too interesting was it? When you make the topic "should be illegal" you have to make a moral argument against what is currently legal. Our legal system is informed in some way by our moral system. That is why you're making a moral argument for it to be illegal. You're grasping for straws real hard with this protest. I hope you, Or at least the judges, Can see this 2. "We" means humans. "Other beings like us" are other humans. We are conscious, So we assume other beings like us are conscious. Consciousness is the ability to think, Awareness of onesself in your brain, The ability to plan ahead for future events, Et cetera. There is not a single definition. I assume you're aware of what consciousness is because you use it in your own argument as well in a similar fashion. Consciousness is the value that science may eventually define perfectly and be able to measure perfectly. It cannot now. I have said this, And I have said that since we cannot measure it we have to use something else. That is why I go with brain activity. It is a different 'potential' than your 'potential. ' A different starting point. I believe the start of personhood is the same as the end of personhood. When brain activity stops, The person ends. When brain activity starts, The person begins. Brain activity starting is the person beginning to build themselves. Prior to the person beginning to build themselves, The mother is simply building the vessel of the person which is not a person, Therefore can be destroyed with no moral repercussions. This is quite simple and not vague at all. I think the judges will see this. You believe that persons begin when they have the potential to eventually be conscious (higher thinking), Or they currently have that ability. Here are a few things I'm not sure of: 1. Why is the starting point fertilization for you? Eggs and sperm all have the 'potential' to have higher thinking if an intermediate step - fertilization - is taken. Why do they have no value? Fertilized eggs also require an intermediate step - a female growing the body, Risking herself and letting her nutrients be leeched, To develop that potential into reality. Both require intermediate steps, I can't see why your values don't extend to eggs and sperm. They both have half a DNA set. If your value is potential, They have it too. If your value is a full set of DNA, Why does a dead body not have value? Dead bodies have a full set of DNA. If we value DNA when it comes to personhood, Those with no brain activity are still 'live persons. ' It would then be murder to take brain-dead individuals whose bodies are on life support off life support. You have said you value DNA as a necessary precursor to consciousness. I submit it is not so. DNA may help construct the brain but I wouldn't value it. If I replace parts of you atom by atom with mechanical parts and pieces I think that you will eventually have no DNA but still be human. I think if we can remove DNA from the equation and still have personhood we shouldn't value it as a precursor. I think consciousness can exist without DNA. The machine may not specifically have "brain activity" but it will be similar. Measurable. Activity or processing of some sort will occur. Perhaps one day science will improve both of our definitions by understanding consciousness better. We are not there yet, So we're both working with the best we have. I just can't value DNA. It helps construct the body and brain. It is not personhood itself. I have no attachment to my DNA just like I have no attachment to my body. I DO have attachment to my processing ability, My brain activity, My pattern recognizer, My experiences. I can thank my DNA for constructing my brain but I can't factor that into who I am as a person. All the DNA has done is give me the hardware required. Personhood is the software, The experiences in the memory. Software that can be uploaded and removed entirely from the hardware and moved onto other hardware. You aren't your DNA. You are your pattern recognizer. Brain activity is a sign of consciousness in a real way. A precursor that continues to point to consciousness even after the body is formed that cannot be removed. I said in R1 my reason for giving unborn humans personhood when brain activity starts and not pigs is the same as yours. Because we as humans assume other humans will develop consciousness with that brain activity. You can say brain activity and DNA are both 'potential' but they are different starting points. Neither are vague, But you throw in an extra principle with your DNA valuation. If I have a body on life support that is a living organism with genetic potential. "To become rational" is pointing at the brain, Which does not exist at fertilization, Nor does it start working for several months. I have discussed why DNA valuation is inconsistent. Females tend to NEED to milk themselves or they get significant pain. It would be for me like feeding someone my urine. I wouldn't see that the same as my blood. Forced breastfeeding is certainly a bodily autonomy violation, But comparing that to forced pregnancy is laughable. Saying most women would agree with me here is an appeal to the masses, But not a fallacious one. You can argue that women SHOULD feel a certain way and I can say they don't currently. The problem with your 'natural and ordinary' principle isn't that it doesn't work here, It is that your argument works without it, And when we create principles we apply them in as many places as we can. We export it to other moral scenarios. We justify killing people all the time. Women are second class citizens without reproductive control. Your permitting surrogate abortions IS legal abortion. It is inconsistent because you're allowing people to kill what you value as persons.