Abortion is Murder

Thank you Con for the swift and thoughtful response. I will begin by responding to some of Con's points, then I'll offer some additional rebuttals to the new information presented. My opponent began in a slightly confusing way by agreeing with all my rebuttals and admitting that any definition of viability, including their own, is "inherently imprecise and fraught with uncertainty." I believe this admission alone is enough to reject Con's argument. They even go so far as to admit that more future abortions may indeed be classified as murder as scientific understanding improves. This seems to confirm my position. Nevertheless, I will continue. My opponent suggests that fertilization is an equally arbitrary and uncertain point drawn on the pregnancy timeline. As an example, they point out that we cannot know the exact second fertilization occurs. Actually, we can. We can physically see a spermatozoon fertilize an egg through a microscope. In fact, this is exactly how the process of In Vitro Fertilization works. Even if we couldn't see it however, we would still know that there was a precise millisecond when a genetically unique spermatozoon reaches an egg cell, forming a set of 46 chromosomes with unique, individual DNA. The second that DNA is formed, there is no denying the resulting organism is now genetically Homo sapiens. As it turns out, fertilization is not arbitrary at all - it either has 46 chromosomes or it doesn't. Fertilization keeps the definition of humanity consistent for every person in human history. Conversely, we do not find the same consistency when trying to define a "moment of viability." This moment is unique for each child. One child born at 22 weeks survives, another child born at 23 weeks does not. One fetus becomes viable at 21.5 weeks, and another at 22.7, etc... Viability changes as technology improves. 500 years from now there may be a device that keeps fetuses alive at 8 weeks. If we choose viability to define life's beginning, then our humanity is simply a function of the technology we have access to. The problem with that is technology cannot bestow humanity, it can only enhance it. Defining human life at a moment of viability is too uncertain to be useful or safe. As Con correctly put it, "the consequence of getting it wrong is that a viable baby is miscategorized." Next, Con expands their definition by suggesting the moment of viability is also the moment a fetus becomes an individual. A fetus is not an individual, the argument goes, as long as its fate remains tied to the mother. There are legal, genetic, and logical reasons to doubt this claim. Legal: American law recognizes an unborn fetus as an individual with individual rights at every point in pregnancy. In 2004, the federal government passed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it illegal to harm (either intentionally or unintentionally) an unborn child. The law defines "unborn child" as follows: "the term 'unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term 'child in utero' or 'child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." This means that if drunk driver hits a pregnant woman who, as a result, loses her baby, he can be charged with homicide even if the mother survives. This remains true whether the mother is 4 weeks or 40 weeks pregnant. There is no clause that says the unborn child must be "viable" before it has legal rights. It is protected by this law at every stage of development. In addition, 38 states have also passed similar "feticide" laws. Only 9 states have viability clauses in their laws, which range from 8 weeks (Montana) to 24 weeks (New York) [1]. So, a 20 week fetus has rights in Montana, but not in New York? The point here is that the federal government and 29 States recognize that a fetus has individual rights protected by law as a member of the Homo sapiens species at every stage of development. [2] Genetic: Con argues that fertilization and the combination of 46 human chromosomes is simply the moment a potential identity is created. That identity is not fully established until the fetus becomes viable, whenever that may be. This is simply not true. The human DNA present after fertilization is the same DNA that person will carry with them for the rest of their life [2]. Since our DNA is our genetic identity, it's hard to imagine that this identity is only "potentially" real before the arbitrary point of viability. I agree with Con that potential identities exist before fertilization, because many potential chromosomal pairings are separated by time and space. But that is not what we are talking about - "aborting" organisms (sperm and eggs) before fertilization cannot be murder because there is no pregnancy, and as a result, abortion is impossible. You cannot abort if you are not pregnant. It is only when this time and space separation disappears (fertilization) that identity goes from potential to actual. Our DNA, even at the second of fertilization, is 100% unique and distinguishable from the mother and father. It is very hard to argue that a pre-viable fetus only has a "potential" genetic identity. Logical: My opponent writes that a baby cannot be an individual as long as its fate is tied to the mother. They correctly point out that if the mother dies, her non-viable baby will also die. However, when discussing fate you must consider all its possible outcomes - you cannot just focus on death. If a fetus's fate is truly tied to its mother, then that also means it will live as long as its mother stays alive. This is not true however. A pregnant woman can be injured, survive, but lose the baby. A perfectly healthy mother can give birth to a stillborn child. This argument also extends to life after birth. A 1-year old's fate is still tied to another person (a mom/caregiver). If you put a baby on a park bench and isolate him from any caregivers, he will die. Conversely, if you put a 13 year old on a park bench and isolate him, he will probably be able to find food and keep himself alive. So, arguably, our fates our not our own until we are able to survive by ourselves. Does that mean we have no identities until age 13? I believe that Con's argument here does not hold up to logical scrutiny. In conclusion, I once again submit my definition for human life: Any collection of living cells containing all 46 human chromosomes and complete human DNA that, if kept alive and healthy, will eventually develop into a mature human capable of reproducing with other humans. Again, fully realizing there are genetic and sexual defects in some cases, I believe this is a reasonable description of most human life. Possessing 46 human chromosomes makes you a member of the Homo sapiens species, and this moment occurs at fertilization. To define human life at any other point is simply a statistical guess. Human life is too important to be defined by statistics (which are always changing). A moment of viability is too vague and too uncertain to be consistent, and I therefore propose my definition is stronger. If that is the case, then abortion is the intentional termination of human life, and therefore murder by definition. Thanks to Marquis1212 for a respectful and thoughtful debate. [1] http://www.nrlc.org... [2] http://www.gpo.gov... [3] http://www.ehd.org...