Abortion

First time I have been issued a unsolicited challenge from a forum discussion, but sure, I am happy to oblige. Please note that I am a teacher and I don’t have a lot of time to devote to argumentation. I aim to keep my rounds to a max of 3,000 characters as a result. Apologies to those who have higher expectations, on the positive side it will make the debate easier to read. Moral Framework To narrow the area of contention, I will present the following argument: a) It is acceptable for a person to remove a non-human non-sentient growth from their body (even if it entails the growth’s death) b) A human non-sentient growth is ethically equivalent to a non-human non-sentient growth c) If A is true, and if B is true, then it is also acceptable for a person to remove a non-human non-sentient growth from her body Conclusion 1 (a,b & c Modus Ponens)): It is also acceptable for a person to remove a non-human non-sentient growth from her body d) All foetuses (prior to 24 weeks) are human non-sentient growths Conclusion 2 (Conclusion 1 & d – BARBARA Syllogism): It is also acceptable for a person to remove a foetus from her body. While this syllogism doesn’t achieve much, it does narrow exactly what I will argue and what my opponent needs to refute, if premises a,b, c and d are true, then the conclusion follows deductively, thus Pro would needs to refute at least one of them to avoid the conclusion. Defence of A: We have no issue with removing shrapnel, basteria, cancers or parasites from out body in society. There are essentially no laws prohibiting this until it comes to humans. This premise is not in contention. Defence of C: Swapping situations by maintaining ethical equivalency will logically yield identical ethical considerations and outcomes. If tables are ethically equivalent to pens, then damaging either of them will yield the same ethical judgement. Defence of D: This is categorically true, foetuses are a type of growth that exist in women, and they are human. Moreover if Pro objects to the word “growth” here then this entire argument can simply be rephrased with “thing” replacing growth with exactly the same logical validity. Defence of B: This is where I expect anyone who is against abortion to object. While we consider this false if we use adult humans as an example, we need to consider why we value sentient adult humans over non-sentient non-humans. The fact that adults are sentient, with their own values, and the fact that we empathise with such humans and fear harm coming to ourselves. If we fear harm coming to ourselves then we seek to avoid harm coming to people like ourselves, thus we rule against murder (the unjustified killing of sentient humans). However when we consider foetuses, they lack any of this capacity, their brains are not developed, they don’t have memories in the way we do, they don’t hold values, they don’t care, nor could they care, about their existence, or anything for that matter. Thus they are much like other living organisms, such as bacteria, fungi or parasites such as tapeworm, for which the same things apply. They for moral purposes, fall into this category since there is nothing of comparable value there to consider. Removal of an Inconvenience Childbird is a major inconvenience on the mother. The foetus consumes calories and nutrients from the mother, and essentially is a parasite to its mother host. Just like any other parasite, it is something that the mother can be entitled to remove from her body. Moreover full-term childbirth is physically strenous, exceptionally painful for the mother and often permanantly physically altering process. To say this is an inconvenience is an understatement, and is something that should only be borne if the mother intends to keep the child, or wants to birth it and give it up. Abortion removes this issue. The Mother takes Priority over the Foetus The mother is a conscious human being with memories, values and experience and knowledge of pain. The mother has real-world relationships and is often within the workforce generating capital when not impregnated. The foetus is an unconscious, or minimally conscious cluster of cells/tissue without anywhere near the extent of the aforementioned qualities. These are the qualities that we tend to value for moral reasons. Moreover, any foetus will have these qualities to a substantially lower extent than living domesticated animals for food consumption, e.g. Cows, sheep, even chickens. As a society we don't hold these to the same moral standards as a fully grown human mother would, thus why on Earth should we view a foetus as such? Thus, the mother, who wants to get rid of the parasite/foetus, should have priority over any arbitrary collection of human cells. Wel, sh*t, 4500 characters. Next rounds will be shorter.