Abortions are morally wrong.

A. The Biological Version of the Central Anti Abortion Argument 1. A Potentialities Derivation "Rights simply can't be derived from potentialities...." My opponent's argument is that because we deny a nine-year-old the right to vote, that nine-year-old does not deserve the right to vote. Well, it just doesn't follow. We refuse to acknowledge any claim he has to vote, but he might still deserve it. However, the nine-year-old has the right to vote in the future, as does a fetus. Therefore, according to my opponent, because fetuses are not yet conscious, they do not have the right to eventually become conscious. There isn't even a real analogy here. "Potential beings simply don't have the same rights as actual beings." And why not? Why must a dividing line be made? "Given what we know about genetics every cell in the body with a nucleus has the potential to become another person with the right genetic manipulation...." My opponent's first source is just the bottom of a Wiki page, giving no information whatsoever about anything. If there's anything there, it's in another link, and I'm not searching through them. My opponent's source actually says exactly what my opponent is saying. However, the source gives no further insight into this statement. My opponent's source is just a random guy's blog, which gives no sources. Blogs are not proper sources for science. It's about as reliable as this site [1], claiming that the world will end on 2012. Yeah, right. 2. Coma Guy, Fainting Guy, and Snoring Guy "Your comparison is inapplicable. Humans are capable of self consciously considering the future." Not the above three. "And by murdering someone that is sleeping or in a comma you are violating their preference to continue living." Coma Guy has no preferences. "Therefore, people in a comma have a right to life because they have a desire to continue living even if it isn't present while they are in a comma." They have a desire, even if they don't? What? That doesn't make any sense. "Moreover, a conscious adult has already acquired the capacity for cognition..." Expound on that. This statement alone gets you nowhere. "...and since I have shown that potentialities are irrelevant..." With a blog? No. "...a fetus can't have a right to life because it has never been conscious. So now a fetus CAN'T have a right to life? My opponent has never connected consciousness with the right to life. At all. B. Contention -1: A fetus doesn't have a right to life. 1. Refutations above. 2. My opponent claims that I use a false analogy. "In false analogies, though A and B may be similar in one respect (such as color) they may not share property X (e.g. size)." [2] My opponent connects my analogy to false analogies by saying, "it essentially equates a fully conscious adult human with an unconscious fetus." That doesn't have anything to do with anything. It does not make my analogy false. "Moreover, your reasoning is also circular since it presupposes that there is no significant moral distinction between those who have a mental life and those who are incapable of having one." There is none, until you can establish it. "A fetus, on the other hand, is not self-conscious and thus cannot have a serious right to life." My opponent again falsely assumes that self-consciousness is the requirement for a serious right to life. 3. Does a fetus have a desire to live? "You're mistaking a biological directive for preferences and desires." Can you give a reason as to why a biological directive is not a biological desire by the body to live? "This would be like me saying that a corpse, with muscle spasms due to their Brainstem, is actually still alive." My opponent's only source for this statement is a Wikipedia article on the brainstem. However, "muscle spasm" appears nowhere on the entire page. This is nothing short of hilarious. Disregard all statements made by my opponent concerning muscle spasms until he can actually source them properly. 4. What constitutes murder? "A fetus does not have a desire to continue living and therefore it cannot have a right to life." Its biological directive gives it a desire to continue living. It is similar to Snoring Guy. Snoring Guy has no conscious desire to continue living, but the body is still keeping itself alive [3]. "Your right, it doesn't have to be consciously held. However, it must have been consciously held at some point." And why must it have been consciously upheld at some point? C. Contention +1: This syllogism affirms abortion to be morally wrong. First, I must apologize that I need to edit my syllogism. Edits will be in asterisks. Sources from Round 1 will be marked by #. *1. Christianity is a standard of good conduct. [4]* *2. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are branches of Christianity. [5][6]* *3. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are standards of good conduct. (Substitution,1,2)* 4. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are Pro-Life. [#9][#10] 5. Pro-Life means being in opposition to abortion [#11]. 6. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are in opposition to abortion. (4,5) 7. Abortion is not in accord with Catholicism and Southern Baptism. (6) 8. Abortion is not in accord with standards of good conduct. *(Substitution,3,7)* 9. Abortion is morally wrong. (8, definition of "morality") The rest is essentially the same, with different numbers. My opponent has dropped all statements in this syllogism besides those noted by asterisks and the only one he contends, although it has been removed: "Not only is this premise unsupported..." From the Wikipedia page I sourced: "Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief..." Moral code, according to Wikipedia [7], is "a code of conduct or belief concerning matters of what is moral or immoral." Because I know that my opponent is going to leap on the "often" part, I used a new source. "...it is logically impossible for it to be correct." Wrong. "All religions cannot simultaneously give good standards for morality..." My opponent misplaces the word "good." "All religions are standards of good conduct." "All religions are good standards of conduct." See the difference? This difference is what makes my opponent's entire argument after it invalid. Of course, I've already replaced it with a more easily sourced "Christianity is a standard of conduct." D. Conclusion Analysis - Round 1 "No, humans have a right to life because they can self-consciously consider the future." Oh, really? And the ability to self-consciously consider the future is the dividing line for the right to life because...? "They want to still be alive even if they temporarily go to sleep." A fetus wants to be alive even when it hasn't reached consciousness. E. Conclusion Analysis - Round 2 My opponent makes an analogy with oak trees, although we feel no moral duty towards oak trees in the slightest. I don't know what he's trying to get at here. "It is therefore obvious that things don't derive rights from what they can potentially become; they derive rights from what they currently are." Actually, I would treat the acorns as I would the oak trees. "If my opponent's argument were valid we would have to treat blastocysts, literally undifferentiated clumps of cells, with the same kind of moral concern we give to a full grown person." My opponent wishes to discriminate against blastocysts because they don't have as many cells as we do. Good luck in your final round, Freeman. 1. http://www.december212012.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://library.timelesstruths.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://en.wikipedia.org...