Abortion is morally acceptable

Sorry this is so late! But here you go: "An important fundamental of human rights is that one does not need to be aware of them to be entitled to them. For example a slave born into slavery probably would not know that they have the human right to freedom, but that does not justify their owner continuing to enslave them." A person born into slavery might not know that he has the right to freedom. But he does know what freedom is, and he knows that he wants to be free. If this was not the case, slavery would have never been abolished, and the right to freedom would have never been established. A fetus doesn't know that humans have the right to life, but the distinction is, it has no interest in being alive. While you can tell a slave about freedom, you can't tell a fetus about life. "I would also argue that a born baby also is not consciously aware of life; I certainly didn't when I was that age." A baby might not know what to call it, but I would say a baby is definitely aware of life. A baby cries when it is hungry or in distress because it wants to stay alive; it wants the presence of its mother because it knows she will keep it safe and give it the necessities to carry on. It is an instinct of all sentient animals to survive. "Abortion can be seen as a 'conflict of rights' insofar as it asks the question: 'which human right is more fundamental; freedom and security, or life?' I would argue that the right to life is more important than the right to freedom and security, I could analyse such a dilemma under deontology and utilitarianism and I would probably conclude that it is more moral to value the right to life over the right to freedom and not the other way round. On a social level, every single country in the world punishes murder more severely than the negation of freedom and security, this would suggest that the right to life is more important than the right to freedom and security." The right to life is a very important thing, and I would agree, it is one of the most important human rights, but I would argue that in the case of abortion, the right to liberty is more important than the right to life. Let me explain: you say that in order to preserve a life, the liberty of another life (in this case, the mother's) is compromised to uphold the right to life. Now, let's say I agree that a fetus is a viable person entitled to all human rights (though, as I have said, I do not). The mother of that fetus is forced, by law, to carry the baby to term, completely giving up her bodily autonomy and liberty to uphold the most important right, the right to life. Now, let's say that there is a girl in desperate need of a liver transplant. A boy shares the same blood type as her, and doctors say he can save her. For whatever reason, the boy says no, he does not want to give up a part of his body to save her. It might be because the surgery is painful and expensive, or the boy didn't like the girl, or he can't afford to take any time off of work/school, but regardless, he cannot be forced into giving up his liver. You say that the right to life is more important than the right to liberty. That means that in this situation, you think that the boy should be forced to go through the procedure and have part of his liver removed to save the girl even though he doesn't want to. He will be forced to have an invasive surgery to remove one of his vital organs because if he doesn't, he'll be severely punished. Is it right for him to not have a choice in the matter? It is his body, after all, and having a vital organ removed would drastically affect his health and his life. It might have been a heartless thing to refuse to save the girl, but it is ultimately his choice as to what he chooses to do with his body. Utilitarian philosophy might say that saving the girl would benefit the greatest number of people, but the law doesn't follow utilitarianism for a reason--after all, utilitarianism can go directly against human rights in some circumstances. Negating certain human rights in order to uphold others is counter-productive and personally, I don't agree with it. "Wait a second, you're now saying that only humans who can think intelligently have a right to life? That would imply that I would be justified to kill babies, dementia patients and mentally retarded people. You admitted earlier that it is moral to hold human life intrinsically, and so therefore it is moral to value human life regardless of its ability to think intelligently." The concept of intelligence is highly disputed. It is defined as "the ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). I apologize, I should have been more explicit in defining what I mean by intelligence, my mistake. Babies, dementia patients, and mentally retarded people technically have human intelligence. Fetuses don't. Besides, you can't compare fetuses and people with dementia and mental retardation; all people were once fetuses, but not everyone is mentally disabled.