A Fetus is Morally Equivalent to a Mature Human

Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo. [1] This effectively precludes the fetus or embryo's potential from developing further. While upholding the premise that murdering a member of the human community, prima facie, is immoral, OneElephant and I will delve into the matter of whether or not a fetus is a member of the human community. Based on our conclusion, we will be able to infer whether the termination of the development of a fetus is moral or immoral.Now, this is the boring part where I post a variation of the standard pro-life argument. But in order to demonstrate the broader context of this case, I have to go over it, so bear with me. 1. The unborn entity, from the moment of concept, is a full-fledged member of the human community2. It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong [2](The term prima facie has been used a lot so far, so I'll take the time to explain what it means. In Latin, it means "at first sight," [3] and the reason that it is used is that it excludes rare cases in which abortion may be deemed justifiable (e.g., when a mother's life is at risk.)) The part of the argument this debate is concerned with is the first premise, with whether or not a fetus is a full member of the human community (and consequently, whether or not it is morally equivalent to a mature member of this community.) The second statement in the syllogism will serve as an axiom if it is brought up, unless the opponent contests this. We now understand the broad context of this argument, and where it stands in the abortion controversy. So, without further adieu, let us put narrow our focus.---1. Photo AlbumWell, I'm flipping through my photo album right now. I see a photo of a small, gleeful InVinoVeritas sitting naked on a dinosaur-themed potty. Is that me? I was so much smaller and less mentally and physically developed. Hell, I had only started college at the time the photo was taken. I case you were wondering, yes, it was me. It was just me at a different stage of development. A baby InVino became a child InVino became an adolescent InVino became a (childish) adult InVino. But through all of it, I was InVino. My mother was pregnant with and gave birth to me, not someone else who would later become me. Although I developed, my body has maintained the same distinct identity of personhood. I was a fetus at an earlier stage of development. That fetus was me. Now, if I were the victim of a murder right now, prima facie, then the murder would be considered immoral, since I am a member of the human community. Any case of prima facie murder of InVinoVeritas would be immoral; I am a victim against whom such an act of murder is deemed immoral. If I were killed as a fetus, then who would be the victim? Since I have established that the fetus is still me (at an earlier stage of development), then the victim is namely me. It is immoral to kill me now, and consequently, it is immoral to kill me as a fetus. [4] In both cases, the victim is the same; the victim is me. 2. SLEDI challenge my opponent to come up with a trait that excludes a fetus from the human community. Meanwhile, I will address some of the traits (SLED: Size, Level of Devlopment, Environment, Degree of Dependence) that some use to argue that fetuses should be excluded from the human community [5]:a. Size: Are moral rights given to those who are bigger? I am shorter than Michael Jordan, and a four-year-old is shorter than me. Am I more justified to be excluded from the human community than Michael Jordan? Is the four-year-old less human than me? No to both... That's just absurd. Size cannot be used to decide whether one is a human or not, nor moral value. b. Level of Development:The developing fetus is far more cognitively underdeveloped than a mature adult. But do we assign moral rights based on cognitive ability? Is a child less morally valuable or less human than an adult due to less developed cognitive abilities? People who are insensitive to pain (e.g., sufferers of Congenital Insensivity to Pain with Anhydrosis) or severely mentally disabled to the point that they are not self-aware are disqualified from being human beings? People in comas who are not cognitively able to actively think, feel pain, or be self-aware are disqualified, too? This is, of course, absurd.c. Environment:The location of the fetus is irrelevant. If, hypothetically, my mother grew to twenty times her size, and I climbed back into her womb, would I be less human? Would I lose moral value? Moreover, by being passed from the womb to the outside (a distance of mere inches), a meaningless non-human becomes human? d. Degree of Dependence:Dependence determines moral value and whether one is a full member of the human community? Not at all. If you are a lifeguard at a pool, you see someone drowning, and no one else is there to help, what do you do? Do you decide not to help, because the moral value of the drowning person is below human because he/she is dependent on you? That's absurd. An unresponsible teenager may depend on his/her parents, but that does not take away from his/her moral value as a human being. These traits do not justify the labeling a fetus as a non-member of the human community. 3. Natural abortionsSome state that since many pregnancies result in miscarriages, or spontaneous abortions, that the moral value of fetuses is lower than that of a human being. This, however, is not the case, because it conflates natural death with intentional death. In the words of Norman Geisler, “Protecting life is a moral obligation, but resisting natural death is not necessarily a moral duty… There is no inconsistency between preserving natural life, opposing artificial abortion, and allowing natural death by spontaneous abortion.” [6]Let us say that a group of ten people have been exposed to extreme radiation. Two of them have died, as a direct result. Would killing the other eight people (by our own will) be more moral than killing someone who was not exposed to the radiation? No. And why not? Because despite the fact that they have a higher chance of facing a natural death in the near future than random members of the general public, they maintain their moral value as human beings. Murdering them would be just as morally wrong, because of the moral value that they hold as members of the human community. ---The unborn are full-fledged members of the human community from the moment of conception. As members of this community, they hold the same moral values.Thank you.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2009) p. 29. Originally from: Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007)[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.uffl.org...[5] http://www.heartlink.org...[6] http://www.equip.org...