Abortion

Hey no worries! This is a very good debate and I understand you being busy. I also had a busy week at school so I understand those things are really the priorities. 1.For everything, there is a standard by which everything else can be relevant towards. For example there is cold, which is the absence of heat. There is a minimum heat capacity by which coldness is measured, which is absolute zero. There is a heat capacity by which heat is measured. So there are certain levels of perfection. If something morally exists, then is there not a perfect standard by which we judge such morality? There must be. Otherwise, our lives our meaningless for nothing can truly be justified or condemned. You can call this perfect standard "God" if you so choose, but there must be, by necessity, some perfect moral standard from which actions can all be judged. 2.If you believe no perfect moral authority/standard exists, then you must admit we should be free to do whatever we wish without repercussion. With no morality, there are no rights, and without rights there would be no true law. So therefore, by believing there is no morality, or that morality is subjective, the Nazi genocides are acceptable and equally permissible for they cannot be held responsible for their wrong actions. However, since obviously the Nazi"s actions were atrocious, it would be well within logical reason to say a perfect moral authority must exist. 3. While these "feelings and emotions and conscience" are essential, all of those things are contained within the potential of the fetus from the moment of conception. A rock doesn"t ever have the potential to grow into the formation of feelings, emotions, and conscience. However, doctors, scientists, and parents know that a fetus will grow into the biological capability of USING a conscience, feeling, and emotion. Therefore, the fetus is different from a rock in essence. So in order to specify on your sentence that "If we abort a fetus before it develops any mental acuity, I don"t see how this is analogous to any such examples that might come up," I will respond with this. The fetus inherently possesses potential to use and access conscience/feeling/emotion just as a new born baby possesses potential to use and access conscience/feeling/emotion. However, neither the fetus nor the new born baby can use conscience/feeling/emotion yet because neither has acquired adequate biological complexity. So therefore, a being merely possessing the potential of conscience/feeling/emotion is sufficient in your argument in order to be considered human. However, in reality, humanity exists on a much more fundamental basis. How does a person have mental acuity? Mental acuity is developed from the growth towards biological complexity in the formation of brain matter, neurons, and chemical processes. Brain matter, neurons, and chemical processes are "physical composition." And because you admit a person without legs and arms is equally as human as you, then you are admitting humanity exists outside of mere "physical composition." So then why would a fetus, by not having the physical composition such as fully developed brain matter, neurons, and chemicals be less human than you? Humanity exists on potential of complex biological growth with unique human DNA, which a fetus has, and also, more importantly, an intrinsic human value that supersedes "physical composition." Because we agree a human without arms and legs is equally as human as you and me, then the intrinsic value of a human is not the number of cells someone has, or a physical composition that science can measure in the lab. Rather, every conceived human being must have an intrinsic value/worth/soul (whatever you choose to call it) that cannot be subject to the body a human being has. What it truly means to be human is based on this intrinsic worth, which a fetus has. Furthermore, we now can say the fetus/human being is more than a mere organism. Does a flower, an organism, have the fundamental right to life? Or if we step on a bug, is there a culpability by which we must be held to for our actions? Of course not. This is further proof that the fetus, and any living human being, has some intrinsic value that other organisms do not possess, and by which, humans are different in essence form all other organisms. 4.The first portion of this sentence is answered on my last four paragraphs. Now to address "the fetus depends entirely on the mother to sustain itself." The fetus is entirely dependent on the mother for survival. The newborn baby is also entirely dependent on the mother/father/doctor for survival. Autonomy/self-sustaining does not determine human life. "The fetus cannot exist apart from the mother," this is not how the sentence should be stated. The fetus is its own being and therefore exists with INDEPENDENCY. But the fetus survives by being DEPENDENT on the mother. Existing is the act of being, surviving is the act of remaining in existence. So the fetus is two part: Existing by its own being and surviving with dependency on the mother. The fetus has unique human DNA, is living, and has an intrinsic human value, which fundamental rights protect, therefore, just because the fetus cannot be considered independent, does not mean the fetus is not a living human being with the right to live. 5.Abortion is permissible in one circumstance due to the reasons I provided in the last round: When both the mother and fetus will die without receiving an abortion. And, "subjective moral issue"? So if you truly believe whether a fetus/mother lives or dies, is subjective morality, then you must believe whether a Jew/Pol is killed by a Nazi is subjective morality and therefore there is no right or wrong. Then if morality is subjective, the Nazi"s cannot be held responsible for their actions. However, morality cannot be subjective. There is a right. There is a wrong. And since there are degrees of perfection in what is right and wrong, then there is a moral perfect standard from which actions are judged and weighed. Subjective moral issues do not determine the rights of individuals, because morality is not subjective. Rather, objective moral reality determines the rights of individuals because rights stem from objective morality. Since rights stem from morality, and law stems from rights, then it is reasonable to say laws should be morally true and just. Which in the case of abortion, the law does not uphold the fundamental rights of the living human being that is the fetus, and therefore, the law would also have to be immoral. Anyone can have the opinion that they are their own moral authority, but because objective reality exists outside of opinion, then the atheist mother would be mistaken in saying so. 6.The mother cannot choose to save herself from emotional trauma if the choice will be one that infringes upon the inalienable rights of another human being. Because the abortion deals with the life of two innocent human beings, then the mother cannot choose to end the life of the innocent human being within her. To kill another innocent human in order to save her from an "emotional reminder," no matter how serious the emotional scar, would be a wrong action.