Abortion Before a Fetus Has a Functioning Brain is Not Wrong

1. Brain function is inadequate in determining one's personhood. This is false. Lack of brain function equates to lack of personhood. Nobody seriously thinks that if my brain is removed or somehow disconnected/deactivated that I retain personhood. No brain, no personhood. Without a functioning brain, an individual cannot be either alive or a person. Consider - is an empty body with no brain at all alive OR a person? Obviously not. 2. Brain development is too gradual to make an effective diagnosis. This may be true, but does not address the notion that at some point in time, the brain is simply not capable of supporting the human organism. Whether or not the brain can support personality is immaterial if the brain cannot support the organism itself. The diagnosis of whether or not the brain can support the organism is fairly simple. 3. Life emerging does not correlate with life departing. My opponent states that the notion that a fetus spontaneously becomes a person is absurd. However, at some point in time between conception and birth, the fetus becomes a person. There is some point where at one moment, the fetus is NOT a person and the next moment it IS. We know for a fact that bodies without functioning brains are not people. Therefore, until the brain functions, a fetus cannot be a person. Furthermore, the fetus IS essentially an organism on life support until its brain is developed enough to take control of the functions that "life support" sustains. Nobody is suggesting killing a fetus on grounds of "insufficient brain activity," as my opponent suggests - I state that it is not immoral to kill an organism that does not have a functional brain. ****************************************** >> "At best, it can be determined to be sub-human (pertinent to your worldview), in which case one must show that killing a sub-human on the basis of brain activity is generally permissible. Until my opponent makes this argument, I submit that killing even a perceived sub-human is wrong." By this logic, it is immoral to kill an ant. What is the difference between an insect and a human except brain capacity? Furthermore, the ant is alive when it is killed. Without a functioning brain, a fetus is not even alive in any sort of meaningful way - this is to say that plants are alive, but not in a meaningful way. >> "1. Brain function is too ambiguous a measuring stick to determine personhood." But not to determine life. The only determination to make rests on "Is it alive?" No functioning brain, not alive in any meaningful way. Brain activity is a prerequisite for life and personhood. HOW MUCH activity is too ambiguous. But we're talking about FUNCTIONING. No function, no life, no personhood. >> "2. Brain development is too gradual to determine exactly when a non-person becomes person." Again - no brain functionality, no personhood. >> "3. Killing a fetus is not the same as pulling the plug on a patient." Right - at one point in time, the patient was alive. The fetus has never been alive. >> "4. Killing someone for being a non-person without having clear criteria on determining personhood is wrong." There is a clear criteria - no brain functionality - no personhood. ****************************************************** Again - how can disassembling something that has never been alive and is not a person be wrong?