Resolved: Elective abortion is prima facie morally permissible

Unless my opponent states otherwise, I'm assuming we both agree that objective moral values exist, namely, that acts such as murder are wrong independently of anyone's beliefs about them. What is the issue? Before we can advance the issue of abortion, we must simplify the matter and focus on one thing: what is the fetus? What follows is a brief overview and highlight of crucial stages in the development of a normal fetus. A normal zygote, after fertilization, contains half of its genetic material from each of the parents. As it moves down the fallopian tube, the zygote continues dividing and becoming a group of cells. After a few days of dividing since conception, the healthy zygote then becomes a blastocyst. After the blastocyst enters the uterus and implants itself on the uterus lining, it begins to receive nutrients from the mother’s bloodstream. Now considered an embryo, it then begins one of the most crucial time of development. The Medline Plus Medical Encyclopedia site documents, “the baby’s main external features begins to form. It is during this critical period (most of the first trimester) that the growing baby is most susceptible to damage.” During week 5 of the pregnancy, features such as the brain and heart begin to develop. [1] What can be gleaned from this? The embryo from conception is a distinct, living, and whole human being. Distinct in the sense that it's "different in kind from any cell of its parents". Living because the embryo "exhibits irritability (reaction to stimuli), metabolism (converting food to energy), and cellular reproduction." Lastly, the embryo from conception is a whole human being because it contains the genetic constituents of human beings, and its cells all work together towards the whole of the organism thus making it whole.[2] Robert George and patrick Lee write, "From conception onward, the human embryo is fully programmed, and has the active disposition, to develop himself or herself to the next mature stages of a human being." [3] Now the issue is addressed by the following argument developed by Francis J. Beckwith: The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong [4] The argument is valid as the conclusion necessarily follows from its premises while assuming the premises are true. Premise 3 follows from premise 1, and the conclusion from premise 2 and 3Premise 1 In defense of premise one, I cite an argument developed by Alexander Pruss that aims at demonstrating a fetus is a person with rights. Pruss begins by arguing that “abortion is wrong in exactly the same circumstances in which it is wrong to kill an adult” (Pruss). He does this by presenting a self reflection of identity claiming that a fetus is a person “because I was that fetus and being a person is an essential property of me” (Pruss). By way of analogy, suppose I have a photo album of my entire life from my conception until now. As I look through the photo album heading backwards in time, I’m essentially the same entity in all those photos at different stages of development--from being 20 years old now, back to when I was 14 years old, 12 years old, all the way back to conception. The fetus in the ultrasound is me. It’s not some foreign, unknown entity or lump of cells that later became me. When my parents asked if the baby was a boy or a girl, they weren’t asking if some unknown entity or lump of cells was a boy or girl. They were asking if I was a boy or girl. If I’m the same person that I was back then, then the fetus is a person. If I have rights now, then I had rights then. If it’s wrong to kill me now, then it’s wrong to kill me when I was a fetus. Thus Pruss concludes “if it was wrong to kill me when I was a fetus, it was wrong to kill anyone when he is a fetus” (Pruss).[5] You didn't come from a fetus; you were one. Just like I didn't come from an infant or a toddler, I was an infant and a toddler. The underlying metaphysical claim is that there is no morally significant difference between the person I am now and the embryo I once was.[6] According to the substance view of persons, I still retain the same identity over time, and I am entitled to unalienable rights--such as the right to life, property, and freedom--because of the very thing I am, i.e. a human being. Our rights and value are grounded in our human nature, regardless of our size, level of development, or race. These rights are thus extended to the fetus since a fetus is a human being in development, albeit one that isn't fully developed, but human nonetheless. Premise 2Next, on the face of it, it's morally wrong to kill another human being. Prima facie, it's morally wrong for me to grab a gun, walk up to a random stranger and murder him. Reason why I note it's prima facie is because not all killing is morally wrong. Such as killing done in self defense, or when one goes to war. There's no reason why anyone should consider abortion as an act of self defense and prudence obliges us to assume that it is a human in the absence of any good reasons to think otherwise. Intuitively, abortion is prime facie wrong. So suppose it’s granted that it's somewhat ambiguous to show when the fetus becomes a person. Suppose we cannot be sure. What would be the most reasonable and ethical thing to do? Is it to go ahead with the abortion anyways? Madeleine Flannagan, who holds a Bachelors in Law and is working on a Masters in Legal Philosophy, appeared on the UK radio program Unbelieveable? to debate the topic of abortion with Dr. Wendy Sanders. Flannagan proposed a very interesting solution to this. She notes, "If you go hunting, for example, and you are shooting deer in the forest. You know there are going to be people walking through the forest, and you see a rustle in the bushes. You are wrong to shoot because you need to establish first that the thing you are going to kill is not a human being. Until we have that issue settled, we need to be on the side of caution." [7] So even if all arguments for personhood fail at the moment, the wisest thing to do would be to play it safe. It would be prima facie wrong to make a move and terminate the fetus, when one is unsure of its personhood. Thus I conclude that elective abortion is prima facie morally wrong and not permissible since it would be killing a member of the human community.