Abortions are morally wrong.

Thank you, Mongeese, for accepting my challenge. I really do appreciate your time. My opponent's arguments are fairly straightforward, so this debate will likely be productive. However, despite what Mongeese may imagine we both have a burden of sorts in this resolution. *Case Con- Rebuttals* ========== A.The Biological Version of the Central Anti Abortion Argument ========== Subpoint 1: A Potentialities Derivation "The right to life any entity can hold rests within its potentiality for future cognition."- Mongeese In order to expand the biological argument against abortion Mongeese has decided to put forth a potentiality derivation of the central anti abortion argument. Though this argument may look compelling it fails upon close scrutiny. Rights simply can't be derived from potentialities. For example, a nine year old is a potential voter that has the potential right to vote in an election. This does not mean that they have the actual right to vote. They won't have the actual right to vote until they are eighteen. [1] And this same line of critique would also apply to any being that has the potential to acquire consciousness. Potential beings simply don't have the same rights as actual beings. There are, of course, other problems that occur if you seek to advance arguments about the importance of potentials. Given what we know about genetics every cell in the body with a nucleus has the potential to become another person with the right genetic manipulation. [2] Literally, every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a holocaust of potential human beings. [3] So, arguments from a fetus' potential aren't going to get you anywhere. Subpoint 2: What about people that are sleeping, in a comma, or those that have fainted? Your comparison is inapplicable. Humans are capable of self consciously considering the future. And by murdering someone that is sleeping or in a comma you are violating their preference to continue living. Therefore, people in a comma have a right to life because they have a desire to continue living even if it isn't present while they are in a comma. Moreover, a conscious adult has already acquired the capacity for cognition, and since I have shown that potentialities are irrelevant a fetus can't have a right to life because it has never been conscious. ========== B. Contention -1: A fetus doesn't have a right to life. ========== Subpoint 1: What about people that are sleeping, in a comma, or those that have fainted? Mongeese makes the same mistakes here that he has made before. Allow my previous argument to carry over. Subpoint 2: Self consciousness and rights "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." -Freeman 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." -Mongeese The basis of this comparison stems from a false analogy because it essentially equates a fully conscious adult human with an unconscious fetus. [4] Moreover, your reasoning is also circular since it presupposes that there is no significant moral distinction between those who have a mental life and those who are incapable of having one. [5] Every normal adult human being is a person regardless of his or her skin color because they are all rational and self-conscious. This is why all different ethnicities have a right to life. A fetus, on the other hand, is not self-conscious and thus cannot have a serious right to life. Therefore, any comparison of a fetus to an adult human is bound to be invidious. Subpoint 3: Does a fetus have a desire to live? "Moreover, a fetus is not capable of holding a conscious desire to continue living."- Freeman "Although the desire is not conscious, it is still there." - Mongeese No, a fetus does not have a desire to live because it is incapable of holding any desires since it isn't conscious. Its neurology is not advanced enough for it to hold those kinds of preferences. You're mistaking a biological directive for preferences and desires. This would be like me saying that a corpse, with muscle spasms due to their Brainstem, is actually still alive. [6] Brainstems can still cause a dead body to have spasms of movement. This doesn't mean that a corpse has a desire to move. Subpoint 4: What constitutes murder? "Murder merely implies the unlawful killing a person that has a desire to continue living." – Mongeese Exactly, murder can only occur with an entity that has a desire to continue living. A fetus does not have a desire to continue living and therefore it cannot have a right to life. Their neurological development prevents them from being capable of holding this desire. For once we agree. "Why must this desire be conscious?" - Mongeese Your right, it doesn't have to be consciously held. However, it must have been consciously held at some point. This is what distinguishes a fetus from a person. Unlike a person, a fetus has never had a conscious desire to continue living. =========== C. Contention +1: This syllogism affirms abortion to be morally wrong. =========== Mongeese begins his syllogism with the following premise. 1."All religions are standards of good conduct." Not only is this premise unsupported; it is logically impossible for it to be correct. All religions cannot simultaneously give good standards for morality because they give contradictory accounts of what constitutes good conduct. For example, some Incan religions have actively supported infanticide. [7] Therefore, my opponent's argument has logically incompatible properties, which makes it self-contradictory. [8] It is logically impossible for all religions to promote good standards of conduct because they flat out contradict each other in their claims about moral behavior. And with the destruction of the first premise the rest of the syllogism falls with it. ============== D. Conclusion Analysis ============== "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." No, humans have a right to life because they can self-consciously consider the future. They want to still be alive even if they temporarily go to sleep. This is why your analogy with the "Coma Guy, Fainting Guy, and Snoring Guy" is fallacious. ======= Conclusion ======= A fetus is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. Consequently, eating a bag of acorns is not the same as destroying a forest of trees even if these acorns had all just been planted in the ground. It is therefore obvious that things don't derive rights from what they can potentially become; they derive rights from what they currently are. Mongeese denies the importance of self-consciousness in determining whether or not an entity has rights and fails to grasp the absurd implications of this denial. If my opponent's argument were valid we would have to treat blastocysts, literally undifferentiated clumps of cells, with the same kind of moral concern we give to a full grown person. [9] And because of these objections the resolution remains negated. Sources: [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://machineslikeus.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://www.advancedfertility.com... Good luck :)