On balance, abortion is immoral

Hello again Philocat, Enjoying this debate so far, and appreciate your feedback. On to my first set of rebuttals! Rebuttal #1: The Value of Human Life As my opponent has argued, because the Fetus is human and is living then it is a human being that has value and killing it is thus immoral. He then offers a few justifications for why it is immoral which I will now address. Rule Utilitarian approach - Let it be noted that in any of these cases the ability for these ethical systems to determine moral truth has not even been established but assumed. Also, the rule "do not kill human beings" is actually a ridiculous rule as it does not distinguish between circumstances at all. A person who is defending themselves for example has justification in using lethal force against his attacker. Also, this broad distinction of "human life," does not recognize the clear differences between a fetus in the first trimester and a baby that has been born. The fetus is still in the early developmental stages and does not have cognitive functions at all without the ability to feel pain or feel consciousness. My Opponent has also not argued why this will amount in a greater amount of happiness. Deontologist approach - My opponent now appeals to a Deontologist approach, but does not distinguish which deontological system he is appealing to. Is it Divine Command Theory? Who knows? What he does claim is that no rational human being would freely consent to live in a society that permitted the killing of human beings, yet every society on the planet does consent the killing of human beings. Either by permitting the killing beings via self-defense or by punishment or of course in the case of abortion. Evolutionist approach - This one was rather odd to me, as I do not know why one would appeal to evolution for any kind of moral truth. Yet, my opponent argues that permitting the killing of human beings is disastrous evolutionary speaking and appeals to "obvious reasons." The reasons are not obvious and from an evolutionary standpoint it doesn't make any sense to knowingly bring a child into the world that does not have beneficial genetic information. Though I would argue that evolution has no bearing on ethics, and when it has been used it has yielded horrendous results as in the case of the Nazi Regime. Without these arguments to justify his position, my opponent has no justification for stating that it is immoral. Rebuttal #2: Argument from Consistency? His argument is that moral assertions must be consistent by the standard of this: 'Treat someone as we would consent to be treated if we were in the same situation as that someone.' This is of course and assumed point, as it is not substantiated why moral assertions must be consistent or even that we should only treat others as we would consent to be treated. However, even if we allow this point, his argument still fails. Notice here his point about consistency regarding abortion. 'I am morally justified in killing a human foetus, but I would not consent to being killed if I was a human foetus.' His argument fails on the simple point that a human fetus cannot give consent to anything. Retrospective thinking on the part of a full grown human ignores the fact that a fetus does not feel or have emotions, or even a desire to live, during the early part of the first trimester they have no brain. Rebuttal #3: The issue of consciousness My opponent appeals to the idea that because a fetus in the first trimester is in a temporary state of unconsciousness they fall under the same situation as a person in a temporary coma. This point is refuted by the clear difference between a person in a temporary coma and a fetus. The person in the coma has been conscious before and has a brain the potential quality of consciousness. A fetus does not have a brain and does not have the potential for consciousness until a brain can be developed. The person in the temporary coma can also communicate prior what their will would be for the situation, while the fetus can only depend on the will of the mother in whom it inhabits. Rebuttal #4: Criminalizing Abortions My opponent argues that because women choose to have abortions, the harm they receive on account of that through illegal means should not be a justification. He likens this to a thrill seeker wishing to bungee jump, which is not a good analogy as a woman getting an abortion isn't doing it for the fun of it. That women who get abortions and die because of it, bring it upon themselves because they sought it out. The problem with this argument is of course the reality of this world in which women do not have freedom over their bodies, but are told by the government what they should rather do. Or that a women seeking abortion for the case of rape would be justly killed on account of her seeking out an abortion. Having a child is a huge potential burden, and the harm of allowing a child into the world where it is unwanted or cannot be taken care of will only produce more harm. He then appeals to burglary as another immoral act that has potential harm to the one committing the act. This is another instance of the weak analogy fallacy, as the comparison of the mother's choice regarding the decision to have a baby and a thief looking to steal from a home is rather obvious. Another point he brings up is that abortion causes more fetal deaths than female deaths, and thus criminalizing it is justified. This of course relies off of his previous justifications that a fetus in the first trimester has the same value as the full grown women who is conscious. It can also be added that his argument about the stigma around being a single parent being less is also not valid as most women who have abortions already have families.[1] His final point is an attempt to refute the idea that because criminalizing the practice doesn't stop it doesn't mean it should be legalized. He compares abortion again with the act of stealing, where there is direct harm against another conscious human being. Why would one want to seek charges against a thief rather than a mother who cannot afford to have another child or is raped? I think the answer is simple, and the answer is in that one is a detriment to society and the other is not. Bringing a child into the world when they cannot afford it or want it actively harms the child as they are not properly cared for and harms society as they likely would have to live off of tax payer granted entitlements. Rebuttal #5: Exigent Circumstances Continued My opponent makes the argument that a fetus with a fatal deformity should be treated like a dying patient. This is especially odd in view of anencephaly (not anaphylactic, which is a reference to a severe allergy reaction). Keeping a fetus alive when it has no brain and treating it as a dying patient makes absolutely no sense. The patient has no conscious experience or hope of cognitive functions as it has no brain, what quality of life would there be to preserve? There are also risks to the mother for her giving birth to the baby, which has no hope of survival, so in order to preserve the sustained existence of this fetus we would risk the life of the mother? My opponent also argues that aborting such fetuses give credence to those who would want to kill those that have already been born. In the case of anencephaly, I see no problem in terminating life support if it is the wishes of the parent, but in cases where the baby is conscious then there is a difference as consciousness is what I noted as valuable. He then goes on to accuse me of appealing to pity, which a quick cursory look can see that I nowhere appealed to pity. I appealed to the fact that the fetus had no consciousness, or hope of consciousness and would likely die soon after being born. That simply because I appealed to the mentally handicapped (I actually appealed to a fetus that has zero mental capacity), I was then appealing to pity. No such assertion can be substantiated given the content of my post, which is a rational assessment of the situation. On the issue of rape or incest my opponent says that the child is not guilty of the father's crime and thus not liable to punishment. Yet, no one thinks of abortion as a punishment for the fetus, but rather it would seem like a punishment to the mother to be confined to raise this rapist's child. There is clear harm in this, in that the women would not have freedom over her own body, but would be subjected to her fate once impregnated by the rapist to endure pregnancy and raising that undesired child. Such an outcome would most likely not be beneficial and indeed harmful for both the mother and child. Ultimately, the woman should have a choice whether or not she raises a rapist's child, and the government should not treat her as a criminal for refusing such. Another alternative he mentions is to set it up for adoption, which is rather a long shot considering how many families are likely looking for the child of rapists (not to many I gather). What's more likely is that this child would end up in a foster home, which studies have shown cause quite a bit of harm.[2] An abortion is also a way to remove one of the consequences of the rape, nothing can undo the harm of that rape, however it should be the choice of the woman whether or not to keep the rapist's child. Lastly, he argues that abortion harms the woman's mental health so her getting abortion should still be criminalized. . The woman should weigh the options herself and exercise her freedom to make a determination on what to do with the rapist's child. Best Regards, TrueScotsman [1] http://www.slate.com... [2] http://www.stirjournal.com...