Abortion is Murder

DefinitionsAs I've stated in round 2, I think everyone knows what "murder" is, and what it isn't. I listed cases where killing of a human being is justified. I accept half of Con's definition of "murder", that it is the "morally unjustified" killing of a human being. But whether the human being needs to be a "person" by Con's criteria or if Con's view of personhood is even valid, is what this debate is all about. Human Life Starts at Conception.There is no denying that human life begins at conception. The moment the egg is fertilized, the embryo has everything it needs to develop into a full grown human. Examining the chromosomes in the cells of the embryo proves with out a doubt that the embryo is categorically a human being. Bernard Nathanson, cofounder of NARAL, and once served as medical director for the largest abortion clinic in America stated,“There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole.” (1)I believe Con accepts that embryos are fully human, so I won’t get in to this topic much.PersonhoodNow, Con’s argues that:1. Murder is the unjustified killing of a “person”2. The unborn is not a person, though he did not specify when exactly is a human being becomes a person.3. Therefore, the killing of the unborn is not murder.This is the meat of the debate. Of course my view is that every human being is a person and I will argue that Con's classification of the unborn as non-persons is rationally invalid. 1. Every human being, including developing infants, fetuses and embryos, have the capacity to develop into a being that meets all the criteria of Marry Ann Warren’s definition of a “person”. Unless of course something goes terribly wrong in their development, like a biological defect, an accident or I don’t know, an abortion. Why would Con then automatically classify the unborn, who is in the process of developing his/her ability to think rationally, express emotions, make decisions, communicate, etc, as a non-person and take away the unborn’s right to live? 2. a. The personhood criteria that Con provided, is used inconsistently. I work with geriatrics and a few of my patients who have severely impaired cognitive skills, would not qualify as persons according to Marry Ann Warren’s criteria. There are also those who are comatose, some premature infants, those who are temporarily under general anesthesia and many more cases in which a human being would not qualify as a person if we were to use Warren’s criteria, yet, unlike the unborn, they are granted the right to life. b. How does Con know that the unborn is not conscious, self-motivated, and self-aware? I believe the unborn meets criterion 1,3 and 5. The unborn is obviously self-motivated since it is rapidly developing. 1 and 5, consciousness and self-awareness are both subjective and can not be objectively observed or confirmed, unless you have God like, creator knowledge. Sure enough the Bible, the word of God clearly suggests that not only is the unborn conscious and self-aware, but the unborn is a person whom God knows personally.3. Lastly, even if I am to graciously grant that #2 is wrong and that the unborn and only the unborn do not meet the requirement of personhood, on what authority does Con or Marry Ann Warren, make these criteria and prerequisites on what a person is in the first place? Why should anyone accept this view of personhood? It could go either away. I can just as easily say that any human being with with human DNA is a person and I can also just as easily say that you have to be able to think rationally to be a person, eliminating all who is severely mentally challenged; or maybe I can say, you have to be able to contribute to the society to be a person, eliminating those who are severely physically disabled and are bed ridden.Why should we accept Con’s view that one has to be a “person” to be granted the right to life at all? Why should we accept that developing embryos and fetuses are not persons? Why should we even accept this view of personhood at all? If it is on the basis of a philosopher’s or a scientists authority, then I say that is rationally invalid. 1. There are philosophers and scientists with differing views.2. Philosophers and scientists do not possess absolute authority over who is granted the right to life. As you can see here, one's view of personhood is completely dependent on what authority you submit to. I have my view of personhood and Con has his. I am not about to deem it morally right to kill unborn babies on the basis of a philosopher's authority and reasoning, and Con most probably will not accept the authority of the Bible. I can howerver show that Con's views are inconsistent with one another, and that leads us to the Nazism analogy.NazismIn round 2, I compared Con’s way of thinking to that of Hitler’s Nazis. Con stated that this is merely an emotional appeal on my part. Well, actually it is a moral appeal and the analogy applies perfectly. The reason why a lot of people refer to analogies like Nazism and African-American slavery, etc is to show how inconsistent one's moral views are. It is to point out that one abhors a line of thinking in one setting but embraces it in another (especially when it is beneficial to one's self).Con said that, “The Nazi's had no rational basis for declaring Jews inhuman.” This is exactly the point. The Nazi’s had no rational basis for declaring Jews inhuman, they made up their own criteria for what a human is and imposed this view on the basis of their own authority. Likewise, Con, or any philosopher or scientist, does not have a rational basis for declaring the unborn as non-persons, or even for his whole view of personhood and distinctions of human beings. Everyone knows that the Nazis’ were simply using their self concocted view of humans to justify the killing of the Jews. Classifying the Jews as non-humans merely provided a moral framework for the Nazis to eliminate the Jews like sewer rats without being charged of human genocide.Reason Behind Abortions and Application of Nazi AnalogyCon mentioned a rare condition called anencephaly and stated that no one would really think that euthanizing this baby would be morally impermissible. As I’ve already said, we are not talking about euthanasia in this debate. Euthanasia in general is another controversial issue that deserves its own debate. We are debating about abortion, not miscarriages, and murder, not euthanasia or war.Most abortion advocates love mentioning conditions and situations that they argue, justify the killing of the unborn. They love mentioning rape victims, incest, severe biological defects like anencephaly. As if that's what they are fighting for. This is not at all the issue of abortion. Those 3 conditions combine to account for a whopping 6% or abortions in the U.S. (and this number will only continue to shrink the more accessible and acceptable abortion becomes). The rest, the 93% is for social reasons (2), this is what we are really debating about. The 93% who are killing healthy, developing human beings, simply for convenience.Abortionists who are propagating views of personhood, classfying human beings and determining on the basis of their own authority, who has the right to live and who does not, are merely providing a moral framework to justify the horrific actions that they are committing. They want to justify their "right to choose" to run away and avoid the consequences and responsiblities of their (excuse the french, and pun definitely intended) f*ck ups, by murdering helpless, voiceless human beings by the millions. Sources (1) Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., The Hand of God (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 1996), 131.(2) http://www.abortionno.org...