Resolved: On balance, abortion is immoral

Thank you, LancelotDuLac, for accepting this debate. I am looking forward to a good debate.

Introduction

I affirm the resolution: On balance, abortion is immoral. This is obviously going to be a philosophical and ethical debate surrounding the ethics of abortion and the value of the unborn. The value premise that I want to uphold is the value of human dignity. Human dignity "is the recognition that human beings possess a special value intrinsic to their humanity and as such are worthy of respect simply because they are human beings". Indeed, as the UN Declaration of Human Rights reads:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world...

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person...

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

So when does this value of dignity begin? The criteria for which I weigh this value of universalism: this value of dignity applies wholesale to every human being from the moment of conception to the time of death. Because it is fundamentally immoral to murder any human being and this applies globaly down to the fetus level. Cross-examination question 1: At what point does taking human life become impermissible? What is the reason for that criteria?

C1) Abortion is prima facie immoral

In Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, Francis J. Beckwith lays out the argument in a syllogism form:

1. The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community
2. It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community
3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fleded member of the human community
4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong

P2 is obviously true and P3 is true by definition. The real debate will be over premise 1.

Beckwith defines full-fledged members of the human community as a "bearer of rights as any human being whose rights-bearing status is uncontroversial, for example, her mother, you, or me". He then further notes:

Second, when I say that killing a member of the human community is prima facie morally wrong I mean to say that in ordinary circumstances no one is morally justified in killing another human being. However, this does not mean that it is always wrong in every circumstance to kill someone who is fully human. There could be circumstances in which killing is justified, such as in cases of self-defense or just war. In the case of abortion, the killing of an unborn entity is justified if her presence in her mother’s womb poses a significant threat to her mother’s life...The specific intention is not to kill the unborn entity but to save the life of the mother. The child’s death is an unfortunate, though anticipated, consequence that cannot be avoided unless one is willing to let both mother and child die. Such a decision is the result of applying pro-life principles: it is prima facie a higher good that one human being should live rather than two die if one cannot save both.

So there are a few important points in play:

1. Abortion is prima facie immoral because abortion kills a fetus who is endowed with the fundamental right to life.
2. In some circumstances, abortion can be morally justified (ie to save the life of a mother)

So why think premise 1 is true? P1 is true because there is no real distinguishments between a fetus and a post-birth human that doesn't collapse into absudrity or question begging and the value of dignity is best applied gloablly (more on this later).

The next question is if abortion can sometimes be justified then why should we affirm the resolution that abortion is, on balance, immoral? Because the vast majority of abortions are not cases like saving a life, severe fetal abnormalities, rape, and other extreme cases. The vast majority of abortions are done for things like socioeconomic reasons and convenience and those cases abortion is unjustified

C2: Human Life Begins At Conception

Subpoint A: The Scientific Consensus:

Central to this debate is the question on when human value begins and whether or not a fetus can truly be considered life. So when does life acutally begin? I contend that it begins at fertilization. This is the scientific consensus. Peter Singer, a philosopher who is known for their pro-choice views, admits this (page 85-86):

It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being; and the same is true of the most profoundly and irreparably intellectually disabled human being, even of an infant who is born anencephalic - literally, without a brain...

To be fair to Singer, he does continue on to argue why they are not morally or legally persons. We will critique his criteria later.

Further, a 2021 paper by Steven Andrew Jacobs found:

Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view. The founding principles of the field Science Communication suggest that scientists have an ethical and professional obligation to inform Americans, as well as people around the world, about scientific developments so members of the public can be empowered to make life decisions that are consistent with the best information available. Given that perspective-and a recent study's finding that a majority of Americans believe they deserve to know when a human's life begins in order to make informed reproductive decisions-science communicators should work to increase the level of science awareness on the fertilization view, as it stands alone as the leading biological perspective on when a human's life begins.

C3: Moral disqualifiers leads to absurdity

Pro-choice advocates are forced to answer the question why do post-birth humans count but the unborn do not? To answer that question, many have proposed disqualifiers on moral personhood. Going back to Singer, he argues:

This use of 'person' is itself, unfortunately, liable to mislead, since 'person' is often used as if it meant the same as 'human being'. Yet the terms are not equivalent; there could be a person who is not a member of our species. There could also be members of our species who are not persons. The word 'person' has its origin in the Latin term for a mask worn by an actor in classical drama. By putting on masks the actors signified that they were acting a role. Subsequently 'person' came to mean one who plays a role in life, one who is an agent. According to the Oxford Dictionary, one of the current meanings of the term is 'a self-conscious or rational being'. This sense has impeccable philosophical precedents. John Locke defines a person as 'A thinking intelligent being that has reason and reflection and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places.'

Singer ultimately argues two things:

1. It is possible for a non-human entity to be a person;
2. It is possible for some living humans (like a fetus) to not qualify as a person.

We then must force the question: what distinguishes a person from a non-person? What are the qualifications and disqualifications for personhood and why? Going back to my previous thesis: There is no real distinction between a post-birth human and a fetus. To illlustrate I will present the "SLED" test:

S: Size

It is true that fetus is a lot smaller than even an infant. But why would the size of a human disqualify it from the right to life? If the negative wants to use size as a disqualifier then they are forced to answer what is the height / weight requirement to be a person and why?

L: Level of Development

Also true is the fact that a fetus is still developing yet at the same time so are infants, teenagers, and young adults. If the negative wants to use development as a qualifier then they are forced to answer and what level of development does something become a person?

E: Environment

"Where one is is irrelevant to who one is.... The fact that a child may be in her mother's womb is a geographical fact not a moral judgement." Personhood cannot be attributed to ones geographic location.

D: Degree of Dependency

It is true that a fetus is significantly more depended than even an infant, but then that again begs the question: What degree of dependency is required to become a person? Futhermore, if a person ages or becomes disabled and is no longer indpendent then do they suddenly lose their personhood?

Outside the SLED test there are a few other qualifiers / disqualifiers I want to address

A. Level of Consciousness

Some have argued that because fetuses lack self-awareness they are not persons and abortion is permitted. The issue with this is that it forces the question what level of consciousness is required for personhood? Indeed, if someone becomes unconscious via a coma or a vegetative state then do they lose their rights?

B. Just a clump of cells

Another common argument is that a fetus is just a clump of cells and thus has no serious right. But then again, isn't that what all life is? Doesn't all life boil down to a clump of cells?

Conclusion

On balance, abortion is immoral because in most circumstances it unjustly takes the life of a person.

I am out of space. Over to con!

Extend

Sad that my opponent decided to abort this debate. Please vote pro