Abortion is always wrong

I argue that abortion is always wrong, based on the fact that abortion is homicide and that homicide is wrong. My argument is as follows: 1. Abortion is the direct killing of a human foetus by another 2. A human foetus is a human being 3. Homicide it the direct killing of a human being by another Therefore, abortion is homicide. 4. Homicide is wrong Therefore, abortion is wrong. This argument is logically valid, insofar as the premises are correct. 1 is self-evident. 2 is justified because a human foetus is alive, an individual organism and human. Life is defined as the property of a being that produces negative entropy from consumption of free energy (1). In simpler terms, a being is alive if its internal entropy (disorder) is being decreased by consuming free energy (by respiration that leads to growth). Growth is the process in which we move from a disordered state to a more ordered state, so growth is evidence of life seeking to decrease its internal entropy). A foetus decreases its internal entropy as it grows and becomes less disordered, therefore it is alive. All living organisms are categorised into species according to likeness of DNA. For example, a cat is a cat insofar as it has cat DNA. A human foetus has human DNA, so it is therefore human. Finally, a human foetus is an individual organism because it has a distinct body that shares the form of ordinary human individuals. It has its own set of organs and its own body. In other words, it is not part of the body of another human being. Using these three facts, we can conclude that a foetus is indeed a human being. 3 is supported by the dictionary (3) 4 is self-evident (apart from cases of proportional self-defence). Utilitarianism, deontology, rights-theories and most other ethical theories agree that homicide is wrong. Therefore, the proposition that abortion is wrong is proven. My opponent states that we should allow abortion where it is 'the lesser of two evils'. Yet he gives no reason as to why this is ever the case. Abortion is not necessary, nor is it the lesser of the two evils in situations of pregnancy (obviously we could construe scenarios where abortion is the lesser of the two evils, but we only need to look at cases that could ordinarily arise in the real world). He cites the cases of the mother being a rape victim as an example of abortion being the lesser of the two evils, although he does not actually say why this is the case. Abortion does not 'fix' the rape at all, it is simply a misguided form of retribution. It is punishing the rapist's child for the crime of the rapist - now that is an evil thing to do. 'in my opinion life doesn't begin at conception but rather at the point the foetus gains consciousness because that is when we start to develop as a person' In many other opinions, life does begin at conception. Why should your opinion have any more weight than others'? Also, why should consciousness be the determining factor of life? If it was, then it would mean that unconscious people or comatose patients are not alive, which is absurd. Furthermore, abortion is proven to be wrong based on the premise that a foetus is a human being - we do not need to discuss personhood. 'Furthermore the idea of a potential person being equal to a living wrong is fundamentally flawed' Of course a foetus is not equal to a living person, but that does not mean that a foetus does not have value as a human being. Both are valuable, just because a foetus is less valuable than a human foetus does not justify killing it. 'So I urge any religious fanatic to reconsider the topic logically and put themselves in that situation instead of referring to a book written thousands of years ago when abortion procedure didn't exist, or even referring to a religious official, as they have no more authority on this as you do as a individual.' My opponent has the misguided view that abortion can only be opposed on religious grounds. However, I have argued using entirely secular concepts to prove that abortion is wrong. To dismiss pro-life people as religious fanatics is both factually incorrect as well as naively ignorant. (1) https://letstalkaboutscience.wordpress.com... (2) http://dictionary.reference.com...