Abortions are morally wrong.

Thank you, Freeman, for starting this debate. "I will be negating the resolution that abortions are morally wrong..." This statement implies that my opponent will be accepting the burden to negate as the Instigator [1]. A. The Biological Version of the Central Anti Abortion Argument Through this argument, my opponent comes to the conclusion that we must use a criterion to distinguish people who suffer from upper brain death from other people to justify killing people who suffer from upper brain death. His conclusion: "The right to life any entity can hold rests within its respective capacity for cognition." I disagree. I think the following would be more appropriate: "The right to life any entity can hold rests within its potentiality for future cognition." One large counterexample to my opponent's criteria is Coma Guy [2]. People in comas lack capacity for cognition, but they have the potential for future cognition. Therefore, my opponent's criteria would make killing people who are in temporary comas morally right. This disagrees with current standards of proper conduct. Unplugging a comatose person's feeding tube is considered to be horrible, horrible conduct. Additionally, one might lose consciousness for a matter of minutes or hours by fainting [3] or being hit on the back of the head by a large, heavy object. If a person faints, is it morally right to kill that person before he or she wakes up? Didn't think so. I wouldn't want anybody getting away with killing me while I'm unconscious like that. Additionally, cognitive abilities are lost upon going to sleep [4]. Does this justify killing people when they're asleep? No, of course not. We'd end up with people pulling all-nighters, worrying whether or not somebody will kill them when they're least prepared to defend themselves, fearing no legal prosecutions. And then murderers would say, "Well, he was asleep, so I was allowed to kill him!" B. Contention -1: A fetus doesn't have a right to life. This contention relies on "person" being defined as "a rational and self-conscious being." However, as this dismisses Coma Guy, Fainting Guy, and Snoring Guy, it should be dismissed as any moral guideline. "It is not a rational and self-conscious being and therefore it cannot be granted the same rights that we would grant to a person." This would be rather similar to saying, "He is not white, and therefore he cannot be granted the same rights that we would grant to a white person." "Moreover, a fetus is not capable of holding a conscious desire to continue living." Although the desire is not conscious, it is still there. "Implantation is an event that occurs early in pregnancy in which the embryo adheres to the wall of uterus. At this stage of prenatal development, the embryo is a blastocyst" [5]. The blastocyst obviously has some natural desire to attach itself to the uterus. "At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother" [6]. Again, it's trying to live. "Murder implies the unlawful killing of a person that has a conscious desire to continue living." Why does my opponent throw the word "conscious" in there? Murder merely implies the unlawful killing a person that has a desire to continue living. Why must this desire be conscious? C. Contention +1: This syllogism affirms abortion to be morally wrong. 1. All religions are standards of good conduct [8]. 2. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are Pro-Life [9][10]. 3. Pro-Life means being in opposition to abortion [11]. 4. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are in opposition to abortion. (2,3) 5. Abortion is not in accord with Catholicism and Southern Baptism. (4) 6. Abortion is not in accord with standards of good conduct. 7. Abortion is morally wrong. (6, definition of "morality") 8. The resolution is "Abortions are morally wrong." (See above) 9. The resolution is stated positively. (7,8) 10. To be affirmed means "to [be] state[d] positively." [12] 11. The resolution is affirmed. (10,11) 12. When the resolution is affirmed, the voters should vote PRO. [13] 13. The voters should vote PRO. (12,13) D. Conclusion Analysis "People have a serious right to life because they are self-conscious and are able to hold a desire to continue living." Most humans have a serious right to life because they have the potential to be self-conscious in the future, and hold a desire to continue living. "On the other hand, a fetus is not a self-conscious being nor is it capable of holding preferences one-way or the other with respect to its existence." Nor is Coma Guy, or Fainting Guy, or Snoring Guy. "Therefore, it is not morally wrong to kill a fetus." This could be true only if my opponent would agree to the idea that it is not morally wrong to massacre Coma Guy, Fainting Guy, and Snoring Guy. Seeing as my opponent is quite often Snoring Guy, he probably won't. E. Sources 1. http://ddofans.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://www.av1611.org... 7. http://www.gargaro.com... 8. http://en.wikipedia.org... 9. http://www.prolifedallas.org... 10. http://www.nrlc.org... 11. http://en.wikipedia.org... 12. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 13. http://www.debate.org...