The Morality of Abortion

(Oh shoot, I am now realizing I changed the debate structure to five rounds in the round one text but not in the settings so we will have to combine our defense and closing statements into round four. Sorry pro) I would like to begin by thanking my opponent philochristos. I always admire when someone can argue for a position that they may not personally take. It shows not only an exceptional understanding of the subject, but also a great deal of maturity. With that said, let us begin. Definition(s) ------------------ I believe: A statement meaning that I personally believe something to be an objective truth (as opposed to stating my mere opinion). Terminating: end the existence of Law of Biogenesis: the law that states that every living thing reproduces after its own kind. Zygote: a fertilized ovum Biologically alive: A living organism Order: Complex organization Stimuli: any drug, agent, electrical impulse, or other factor able to cause a response in an organism. [4] Homeostasis: Maintaining internal conditions Personhood: Inherent value that all humans have. I believe that the abortion debate is centered around only one question: "What is the unborn?" As philosopher Greg Koukl puts it, "If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate." [1] I believe this to mean that if a fetus is in fact a living human being, then terminating that fetus would be murder which I believe to be an objective evil. If the fetus is not a human being then a justification for abortion would not matter. We kill non-human things all the time. Therefore the question is singular, "What is the unborn?" I believe there are a few ways to demonstrate this. The first way is to show that an unborn child at any point in the pregnancy is biologically alive. In order to prove my assertion I will use a zygote as an example. If a zygote is alive and is the offspring of two other humans then, according to the law of biogenesis, that zygote must be a human being. According to boundless.com there are seven requirements to be considered biologically alive. They are order, ability to respond to stimuli, reproduction, growth/development, regulation, homeostasis, and energy [2]. If a zygote satisfies these conditions then it is biologically alive. If it is biologically alive and comes from two human parents, then it must be also be a human being. 1. Order: A zygote is incredibly complex and incredibly organized. I am not a biologist so I do not quite understand all of the structure of a zygote but I understand enough to know that they very organized. They have different microscopic parts that all have their own functions [3] (footnote 3 has more information on how zygotes have order). 2. Ability to respond to stimuli: There have been studies to prove that a zygote can and does react to it's environment. One in particular shows that zygotes respond to a compound called platelet-activating factor [5] 3. Reproduction: A zygote reproduce my means of mitosis, an asexual form of reproduction. (Reproduction could also be referring to the potential to produce offspring which a zygote clearly has) 4. Growth/development: Zygotes grow incredibly quickly through cell division. 5. Regulation: Zygotes can change the composition of its plasma membranes in response to it's environment [6] 6. Homeostasis: Zygotes exhibit homeostasis by regulating their internal conditions to best suit their environment. 7. Energy: Zygotes take, process, and use energy from the mother. Provided we have no qualms about the above list, a zygote fulfills the biological requirements for life. Therefore, by the law of biogenesis, a zygote is a living human being. Terminating it would to terminate a human being. If that does not suit your fancy, I have approach B of looking at this topic. I do not like this one as much as it is really best suited to prove that a fetus is a human being. One simply compares a fetus to a new born baby. I believe there are only four significant differences between a fetus and a new born baby, size, location, level of development, and level of dependency. If any of these differences are not significant enough to call a fetus a different species other than human, then abortion would be acceptable. 1. Size: A fetus is much smaller than a baby fresh out of the womb. The question is if a small person is less human than a big person. A twelve year old is much smaller than a thirty year old but the twelve year old is not less human than a thirty year old. Therefore a difference in size is not significant enough to call a fetus a different species. 2. Location: A fetus is in a different location than a new born baby. Is a person in America any less human than a person in England? I would say no. Therefore a difference in location is not significant enough to call a fetus a different species. 3. Level of development: A fetus is less developed than a new born baby. A two year old is less developed than a thirty year old. The twelve year old is not any less human the thirty year old so therefore a difference in development is not a significant enough difference to call a zygote a different species. 4. Level of dependency: A fetus is dependent on its mother for nutrients. A man with diabetes is dependent on an insulin pump. He is not any less human than a man without diabetes, therefore level of dependency is not a significant enough difference to call a fetus a different species. I believe these to be the only major differences between a fetus and a new born baby. Because none of them are qualifications for personhood, a fetus must be a person with the right to life. Here is my basic argument in the form of a logical syllogism. Argument A (my argument by the law of biogenesis): P1: A living human being has the right to life. P2: The law of biogenesis states that all living things reproduce after their own kind (two human parents can only have human offspring). P3: If a zygote meets the biological requirements for life then it is alive. P4: A zygote meets the requirements for life. P5: A zygote is the biological offspring of two human parents. C: A zygote is a living human being with the right to life. Argument B (my comparison argument): P1: If there are not any significant differences between two organisms then they are the same species P2: A new born baby (and any organism of the same species) has the right to life. P3: There are no significant differences between a new born baby and a fetus C: A fetus is the same species as a new born baby and has the right to life. P.S. I welcome the pro to find any other major differences between a fetus and a new born baby. These are the major ones I could think of. Good luck to the pro! Resources --------------- 1. http://www.standforlife.net... 2. https://www.boundless.com... 3. http://science.opposingviews.com... 4. http://www.justfactsdaily.com... 5. http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org... 6. http://med.studentsforlife.org...