Abortion and infanticide are morally equivalent.

I'll give my case, then rebut his. My case: For the purposes of this debate we must look at why the killing of a fetus is wrong/permissible and why the killing of an infant is wrong/permissible. For abortion "rights": The fetus is not a person, and because of that, it cannot have rights. As it has no rights, the mother is free to abort it. This is basically what Mary Ann Warren, a pro-choice philosopher says. She defines "person" as a being that has 1. Consciousness and the capacity to feel pain 2. Open-ended reasoning ability 3. Self-motivated activity 4. The capacity to communicate in an open-ended way 5. Self-awareness (This comes from an anthology I have, I googled her name and I found this (This comes from an anthology I have, I googled her name and I found this site:http://instruct.westvalley.edu... which has this defintion in it if you need verification.) Another argument, similar to the one my opponent used is that fetuses are "leeching" off the mother, and therefore, the mother can sever those ties. So it is established that abortion is permissible because the a) the fetus has no rights, and b) the mother has the right to control over her body. Against abortion: Fetuses will develop into persons that will have a meaningful future, a "Future Like Ours." Killing the fetus will end the FLO which is wrong, as FLOs are something of value. In short, because fetuses have a future, we cannot abort them. Now, for infanticide. It is permissible: Infants are not persons under Warren's definition. They are not self-aware they can't communicate in open-ended methods, they can't move freely, and they cannot reason. Therefore, they have no rights and can be killed whenever it pleases us. Against infanticide: Infants have FLOs, we cannot deprive them of it. Now, I know the leeching argument cannot be extended to infanticide, so I'll simply argue that that cannot make abortion permissible. Although you would argue that if someone needs your bone marrow or else they will die you have no obligation to give them the marrow. This is very callous. Although many of you are not religious, I feel one of Jesus' parables is extremely applicable here. In the parable, this guy gets beat up and left for dead on the side of the road. Everyone who passes by ignores him, until this one guy saves him and takes him to safety. Jesus says that we must treat others as we wish them to treat ourselves, which goes far beyond religion. Ethics are established to help mankind, and this more, the Golden Rule is a mantra that furthers the well being of mankind. WE are obligated morally to assist our fellow men in surviving. The leeching argument goes directly against this basic principle, and therefore is wrong. Your case: First, you say that abortion in the case of saving the mother's life is certainly moral. I agree, but this must be extended to an infant. If somehow an infant was a direct threat to the mother's life, then killing it would be permissible. For example, the Inuits have a history of killing infants when it becomes necessary for survival. This is of course an older example, but cases resulted where the mother couldn't feed the baby and herself, so she chose her own life over its. This is equally permissible. Most fetuses don't threaten the mother's life, and most babies don't threaten the mother's life. These situations are moral equivalents. Next you say life begins when brain activity begins, maybe so, but this does not overcome two challenges. One, even though they have brain activity, infants are not persons, making their killing permissible, as they do not have rights. The second, is that fetuses and infants alike have FLOs and no matter when they are killed you are depriving them of FLOs which is wrong. Finally, you bring up the leeching argument, which I showed was wrong, we have a moral obligation to help fellow man survive. I'll give another analogy. Say you're rock climbing, you make it to the top, but your buddy's rope snaps. You catch the rope, but you have to go to your wedding. If you wait for rescue, you'll miss the wedding. Even though your buddy is leeching your time, it is not permissible to let him fall and die so you can go to your wedding. The same goes for fetuses. Quod erat demonstrandum.