Abortion is Morally Permissible/Ethical

Resolved: Abortion should be legal. Introduction: I am going to clear up a few details immediately. One argument that has been used against abortion to the point of becoming ubiquitous in such debates is that there is little significant difference between the mental or physiological status of a fetus days prior to birth and an infant days after birth. This is used against the traditional liberal argument that the significant moral break in the development of the fetus occurs with its biological separation with the mother. For the most part I do not accept the liberal argument, but that in and of itself does not help to refute the resolution that abortion should be legal. If it is ethical to abort a pregnancy after a certain point in development, then it was still at some point ethical to abort . To make an analogy, the fact that it is illegal to drive while intoxicated does not support the resolution that driving is illegal. All actions can be can be subject to circumstance. To address my opponent's question more straightforwardly, I am talking about any form of abortion, not just late term abortion. Moving on to the definition of ethics: I do not believe ethics are subject to popular opinion or cultural standards. These metrics have never been particularly accurate in proving anything. My preferred method of determine ethics is that ethical actions promote certain priorities which I deemed favorable. I consider it favorable to increase the pleasure and freedom of people. Something which advances this cause will be considered ethical unless my opponent can provide alternate priorities and demonstrate that they are more important. Argument 1: A Fetus Is Not A Person I will first thank Freeman for using this source in this debate as I find it to be extremely useful. Mary Anne Warren defines a person as having five principle characteristics: consciousness, rationality, self-motivation, the capacity to communicate, and self-concepts. It is commonly accepted in the study of bioethics that these traits or more important thank simply the status of being human. An undefined and ill understood genetic code is an invalid criteria for determining moral status. The mental characteristics cited by Warren are far more important. Now,it is clear that a human fetus does not possess these characteristics. Therefore it is not a person and killing it would not violate the ethical priority of increasing the pleasure and freedom of people. In much the same way, it is ethical to kill animals under certain conditions. A human fetus is morally much like an animal in that though it is living it lacks key mental traits that would elevate it to the status of a person. In much the same way, rocks do not have rights because they also lack these traits. I am not arguing for the wanton killing of fetuses any more than I would argue for the wanton killing of animals. However, animals generally are killed whenever it is favorable or convenient to do so. I cannot see why an unthinking, unfeeling developing fetus would be treated any differently simply due to it's genetic status of being human. I think this suffices to demonstrate that the actual killing of a fetus is not wrong. Therefore, as long as someone had a reason to do so it would be an ethical action. I may bring in addition arguments later in the debate but I believe this alone, if defended sufficiently, is enough to demonstrate that abortion is ethical.