Abortion is morally acceptable

Wow, you're an excellent debater! I reckon I'm a bit out of my league here, so bear with me on this. "Premise 1: A human foetus is human." This is true--after all, it is the offspring of two humans, and has human DNA. "Premise 2: Life is a human right." I agree, life is a human right--the right of a viable human. Should we give the right to life to something that has no interest in living, or indeed any idea what life itself is? As soon as the baby's brain is developed enough to be able to process simple things, like the want of comfort and the want to survive, then that baby should be given the right to life, but prior to that, it has no more concern for living than a plant. "Premise 3: Life has intrinsic value." Life does have intrinsic value, but sometimes the extent of that value can be negotiable. For example, we value cattle enough to raise them and give them the essentials to live a content existence, but ultimately that cow is to be sent to the slaughterhouse and sold as food so other people can enjoy it. Life is an important and cherished thing, but there are circumstances in which in order to preserve the quality of life for people, compromises need to be made about other creatures. But I am guessing that this statement was only meant to apply to humans, which is a different matter altogether. Human life and the taking thereof is not a matter that should be taken lightly, which is what you inferred would happen if abortion was legalized with your statement, "...if we held human life to only hold instrumental value then society would collapse." I disagree with the whole idea that legalizing abortion would make human life "instrumental," but just because something is regarded as instrumental does not mean it is unimportant or something to just be thrown away. Cows are regarded as instrumental for humans to get food, but this does not make it okay for people to just go around killing every cow they see just because cows are not necessary in a society. The very definition of the word instrumental states, "Very important in helping or causing something to happen or be done." It doesn't mean that something is valueless or pointless--quite the opposite, actually. Although I will acquiesce, human life is not something that should be merely instrumental. "Premise 4: It is immoral to destroy that which has intrinsic value and to negate human rights." I want to focus on the second portion of that statement: "It is immoral...to negate human rights." It says, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that all people have the right to liberty, privacy and security of person. Forcing a woman to carry a child--and what's more, an unwanted child she is usually unable to care for--is a violation of her rights. It is violating her privacy, as the state should not be involved with the bodies of any citizen; it is violating her liberty, as it is restricting her from her ability to carry on with her life unhindered (and generally pregnancy/a child is a very big hindrance in a person's life if she is not prepared, especially if that person is economically unstable or just beginning a prospering career); and it is violating her security of person, as it is forcing her to carry through with an uncomfortable, physically stressing pregnancy, and could even possibly damage her mentally if the child was a product of rape. Now, I agree it is immoral to negate human rights, but forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child directly goes against said rights. As for my response to the matter of the immorality of "destroy[ing] that which has intrinsic value," I will reiterate: human life does indeed have intrinsic value. However, an adult, an adolescent, a child, and even a baby are significantly different from a fetus in the fact that they have the want to survive, whereas a fetus is not yet developed enough to have any interest in surviving. Human rights should not apply to those who cannot even process the notion of life. "Premise 5: Abortion is the removal of the foetus's life." This is a pretty invariable fact. In conclusion, though a fetus is a human, it is not a viable human. It isn't developed enough to understand life, much less understand whether or not it wants to stay alive. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and any philosophies that may be related to the preservation of life should only apply to viable humans (i.e., humans that have the ability to think intelligently), and a fetus does not qualify. Restricting abortion also violates the human rights of the woman carrying the fetus, making the restriction of abortion an immoral act. I look forward to your counter-argument! Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.un.org...