Abortion in the embrionic period is necessarily immoral

My first argument is made up of the following premises and conclusion. .. .. 1) If something contains human DNA then it is human 2) Abortion in the embryonic period destroys something that is human 3) It is not necessarily immoral to destroy something that is human C) Therefore abortion in the embryonic period is not necessarily immoral Now onto the warrant for the premises in this argument. .. .. 1) If something contains human DNA then it is human Some one may think that by human I ONLY mean a thinking, talking, feeling person, this would be incorrect. By human I refer to something that possesses human DNA and thus makes it "human" but this should not be confused with "human being" as Joyce Arthur explains. . "Before going further, we need to clarify and interpret some anti-choice language. First, anti-choicers often confuse the adjective "human" and the noun "human being," giving them the same meaning. I am struck by the question they often put to pro-choicers: "But isn't it human? " —as if we secretly think a fetus is really a creature from outer space. If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, anti-choicers triumphantly claim you just conceded it's a human being. Now, a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote" [1] So why isn't something that is human automatically a human being ? as Joyce Arthur continues… "Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive. " [1] 2) Abortion destroys something that is human/possesses human DNA I doubt Con will challenge this premise as the logical negation of this premise could be used to form an even more powerful argument in support of the resolution. 3) It is not necessarily immoral to destroy something that possess human DNA As Wikipedia explains. .. "The cell is the basic structural and functional unit of all known living organisms. It is the smallest unit of life that is classified as a living thing, and is often called the building block of life" [2] We can't accept the premise that killing something that possesses human DNA and is therefore human is always immoral as this would lead to absurdities. For example every time you scratch your nose and kill off skin cells, cells which possess human DNA you have committed an immoral act, every time you kill a human sperm you have committed an immoral act. Now maybe you think you can get around this absurdity by claiming that a zygote or blastocyst or embryo has the potential to continue development, even the potential to become a human being, but so what ? as Sam Harris explains. .. "Perhaps you think that the crucial difference between a fly and a human blastocyst is to be found in the latter's potential to become a fully developed human being. But almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering. Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings" [3] Therefore abortion in the embryonic period is not necessarily immoral Assuming that Con agrees the argument is valid, the conclusion follows with logical necessity from the premises. Second argument in defense of abortion, Bodily rights as Judith Jarvis Thomson argues. .. "But now let me ask you to imagine this. 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. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. 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. " Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him. " I imagine you would regard this as outrageous" [4] Judith later on says. .. "But I would stress that I am not arguing that people do not have a right to life--quite to the contrary, it seems to me that the primary control we must place on the acceptability of an account of rights is that it should turn out in that account to be a truth that all persons have a right to life. I am arguing only that having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person s body--even if one needs it for life itself. So the right to life will not serve the opponents of abortion in the very simple and clear way in which they seem to have thought it would. " [4] Joyce Arthur explains. .. "Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being. For example, the state cannot force people to donate organs or blood, even to save someone's life. We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will" [5] I look forward to Pros reply. Sources [1] . http://www.abortionaccess.info... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... (biology)#cite_note-Alberts2002-0 [3] . http://www.goodreads.com... [4] . http://spot.colorado.edu... [5] . http://www.abortionaccess.info...