Abortion is immoral.

Many thanks to my opponent for his prompt response and compliments :) == Re: CON's Case == 1. Pro's first response is that while the mother has the right to abort a fetus, it's not necessarily the moral option. However my opponent hasn't provided a moral framework (ethical system) to justify this argument. For example, if I utilize the value of ethical egoism as my moral framework, this argument of Pro's fails on the grounds that said doctrine espouses "the virtue of selfishness." In that case, aborting the fetus would actually be the moral thing to do. 2. Pro's next argument is that conciousness does not determine the right to life. He supposes that the potential for sentience is what does. This is not true for several reasons. For example, a male ejaculates sperm when he orgasms. That sperm has the *potential* for sentience, so is it immoral for a male to masturbate which prohibits this endeavorer? Obviously not. Pro continues," Does this mean that during these periods [of sleep], we lose our rights as a human being and are no longer considered human [because we're not conscious]?" Apparently my opponent is unaware of the fact that humans are in fact conscious during sleep [1]. == Re: PRO's Case == My opponent presents a syllogism and I will dissect his premises one by one. 1. Intentionally inflicting harm for the sake of expediency is immoral. When I pull off a band-aid, I intentionally rip it off very fast (causing pain) for the sake of expediency. Is this immoral? There are countless other examples of a similar nature. This premise is discounted on the basis of its ambiguity. 2. If an unwanted pregnancy is achieved through consensual sex, the child is held within the responsibility of the guardians. A) Quite obviously my first response is going to be -- what if unwanted pregnancy occurs through non-consensual means? It would be irresponsible to suggest I must defend this, as that was never clarified in the opening round (Hence why it's important to actually present a case in R1), meaning I never agreed to that standard in accepting this debate. The resolution is not specific in that regard. PRO would therefore have to argue that ALL abortion is immoral regardless of circumstance. B) I question my opponent's choice of words here. Guardians are not synonymous with biological parents. Nevertheless, this is a faulty premise. PRO says the "child" is held within the responsibility of guardians. However a fetus is not a child, so this premise does not apply to abortion anyway. 3. In an abortion, the mother is trying to escape responsibility by the inflicting harm on another human life. This contention is entirely presumptuous. If consensual sex caused pregnancy, but the parents knew the baby would be born with catastrophic birth defects, they may opt to have an abortion and not simply want to shrug off responsibility. People make this decision for a plethora of reasons - many of them responsible. 4. Abortion is immoral. As you can see, this syllogism is null and void on the basis of faulty premises, therefore this conclusion does not logically follow. PRO continues, "So instead of abortion, why not opt for the more moral alternative? Although evading responsibility in itself is sketchy, adoption is a safe way of eliminating unnecessary responsibility without the moral consequences." First, pro hasn't proven that abortion is immoral to begin with, so we have no reason to believe that there even is a more moral alternative. Second, it's once again presumptuous to suggest abortion only occurs to avoid responsibility. Finally, I've explained in the last round that pregnancy always creates risks. As such, it's not true that all pregnancies are necessarily "safe" (especially depending on particular circumstances). == Re: Conclusion == PRO's conclusion is ridiculous. He determines that I must prove sending a prisoner to jail is immoral in order to justify my claim that a woman has the right to self-ownership of her own body. Ignoring the fact that I DO have a lot of moral concerns of the prison system, these two examples are not at all analogous. If someone is sent to jail, it's because they (a) committed a crime against another person, or (b) broke the law. Since abortion is not against the law, and because the fetus is not a person (PRO hasn't argued as such thus far) then it makes no sense to punish a woman as you would punish a criminal by stripping them of their rights via force. They've seemingly done nothing wrong, as they have not infringed on another person's rights. In actuality, a fetus is more likened to a parasite than a person. == CON's Conclusion == PRO is suggesting women should be FORCED to carry a baby to term against their will. This is far more immoral than aborting a fetus with the potential for human life, as it actually violates the rights of a conscious, living person. Since the fetus is not conscious enough to understand or appreciate their existence, they are not losing anything by ceasing to exist (as a person) in the first place. Moreover, my opponent suggests that he does not consider birth control to be immoral. However many forms of contraception rely on terminating pregnancies such as Plan B [2]. Therefore it's hypocritical to suggest birth control is permissible but abortion is not. Thank you. Source: 1. Kolb, Bryan, and Ian Whishaw. An Introduction to Brain and Behavior. 2nd. New York: Worth Publishers, 2006. 454. Print. 2. www.PlanBOneStep.com