Morality Debates: Abortion Edition

My opponent's argument begs the question by simply presupposing the unborn to be non-human. Before we ask the question "Is it permissible to kill the unborn?" we must ask "What is the unborn?" Picture a mother with her back turned whose child runs up to her and asks "Mommy, can I kill this?" Obviously, before she answers the question, she needs to know what "this" is. My opponent has simply disregarded the status of the unborn. My position will be to demonstrate that the unborn fetus is a rights bearing human person. My argument will be secular in nature, relying not on religious premises, but philosophical and scientific arguments. Contention 1: The unborn is a living human This is an obvious fact that is conceded by most sophisticated abortion advocates. The unborn possess human DNA and are the offspring of human parents. The embryo, from the moment of conception, is a self-contained organism with its own unique genetic code. True, it is an immature human, but level of development does not make anyone less human. After all, toddlers are less developed than teenagers, but it is rightly absurd to say that toddlers are less human than their teenage counterparts. That fact that an embryo is a living organism is clearly obvious, since dead things don't grow. [1] As outlined by Robert P. George and Chris Tollfesen, there are three key points to take into consideration which firmly demonstrate the humanity of the unborn: 1. "The embryo is from the start distinct from any cell of the mother or of the father" 2. "The embryo is human: it has the genetic makeup characteristic of human beings." 3. "The embryo is a complete or whole organism, though immature. The human embryo, from conception onward, is fully programmed and has the active disposition to use that information to develop himself or herself to the mature state of a human being." [2] Contention 2: The unborn is a rights bearing person Personhood is an essential property that is rooted in human nature. That is, the unborn are persons by virtue of being human organisms. "[A] human being is intrinsically valuable because of the sort of thing it is and the human being remains that sort of thing as long as it exists." [3] The unborn do not become persons by virtue of gaining some accidental property (Such as consciousness), they are persons by their very nature, even if properties such as consciousness are never actualized. A dog remains a dog even if it never develops the ability to bark. By the same token, a human being who never develops the ability for self-consciousness is still a human person because of his nature. "Consequently, a human being's lack makes sense if and only if he is an actual person" [4] Contention 3: The murder of a human person is prima facie morally wrong Sure, there are instances where killing is justified (Ie: self-defense), but unless the unborn is directly threatening the mother's life (In which case the doctor can only save one or the other), then it is immoral to take the life of another person simply for the sake of one's personal convenience. Therein lies the heart of my argument: Abortion is prima facie immoral. "What if the carrying female was raped or abused or thrust into an unconsentual incestuous sexual experience with, let's say, her brother. " If the unborn is a human person, then its termination through elective abortion is murder. My opponent again simply begs the question. Though I sympathize with the woman's plight, the unborn child did not perpetrate the crime, he is simply a victim like the mother. Let me repeat: the unborn child is not the aggressor. The killing of another human being is by no means a justification to relieve one's own emotional stress. The _real_ question is: "Is the abortion a rights being person?" If the unborn is, as I have sufficiently demonstrate, then the taking of its life is immoral if done out of personal convenience. My opponent has simply begged the question by assuming the answer of that to be "No." As I have demonstrated, the mother is morally obligated to have the child. If she does not want the child, then she may give it up for adoption. _____________ SOURCES [1] -- Scott Klusendorf, "The Case for Life" (Wheaton IL: Crossway. 2009) 37 [2] -- Robert P. George and Christopher Tollfesen, "Embryo: A Defense of Human Life" New York, NY: Doubleday 2008) chapter 2 [3] -- Francis J. Beckwith, "Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice" (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 2007) 132 [4] -- Beckwith, 132