Abortion is prima facie morally wrong.

Let's make this a good one. ============> Against Abortion: Why A Fetus Does Have A Serious Right To Life <============= C1+: "It is not always wrong to kill an innocent human being. " My opponent brings up a single counter-example to the proposition that it is wrong to kill an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens: a person with upper brain death (henceforth referred to as Dead Guy). It is true that we don't consider killing Dead Guy to be immoral; however, we must remember why this is so. The reason killing Dead Guy is considered moral is because Dead Guy has no hope of regaining consciousness [1]. That is the primary difference between Dead Guy and a comatose person (henceforth referred to as Coma Guy) [2]. If Dead Guy were capable of regaining consciousness, it would be immoral to kill Dead Guy. Given this key reason why it is moral to kill Dead Guy, we can come up with a new syllogism: P1: It is wrong to kill an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens that can become conscious in the future. P2: A human fetus is an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens that can become conscious in the future. C: Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human fetus. The revised anti-abortion argument does not have the flaw of the previous one. My opponent then claims that because fetuses and adults are different, fetuses cannot have a serious right to life. However, this is a reverse false analogy: 1. A is different from B. 2. A has X. :. B doesn't have X. He also claims that "murdering grown adults is wrong whereas killing a fetus is not" because "it does not posses a significant mental life with thoughts and desires" although this is clearly not the case. Coma Guy and Vegetable Guy both lack a significant mental life with thoughts and desires, so by my opponent's logic, it is okay to kill them, yet this is not the case. C2+: "A fetus is not a person and thus cannot have a serious right to life. " My opponent's argument can be summed up in the following way: 1. An adult is different from a fetus. 2. An adult has a significant right to life. :. A fetus does not have a significant right to life. However, this is a reverse false analogy, a logical fallacy, and can therefore be disregarded. C3: "An entity's potentials cannot grant that entity rights. " My opponent claims this, and yet contradicts this as long as he agrees that it is moral to kill Death Guy yet immoral to kill Coma Guy. The only reason Coma Guy is kept alive is because of his potential to regain consciousness. This means that, contrary to my opponent's assertions, Coma Guy has the right to life because of his potentials. My opponent also argues that if killing a fetus is immoral, then killing sperm cells and egg cells is also immoral. However, this ignores the fact that such cells are not potential human beings, but potential halves of a potential human being. An individual egg cell is not human, and nor is an individual sperm cell. However, combined, they make a human. The moment of conception is the moment that defines the human. ::Conclusion:: In summary, my opponent claims that the human fetus is not a person, but fails to demonstrate how this denies it the right to life without committing a fallacy. My opponent's "strong counterexample" to the anti-abortion argument is reasonably eliminated with a slight revision that excludes the counterexample but still demonstrates abortion to be immoral. There is no reason to think that the right to life rests in consciousness or ability to think, but rather in being human. 1. . http://health.howstuffworks.com... 2. . http://health.howstuffworks.com...