args

Abortion should be illegal

Introduction I will make two arguments arguing for the illegality of abortion, both are quite similar, but cumulatively they amount to a solid proof of why abortion should be banned. Argument 1 - rights P1: A foetus is an innocent human being P2: All innocent human beings have a right to life C1: A foetus has a right to life P3: Abortion contravenes the foetus's right to life P4: That which contravenes a human being's rights should be prohibited by the Government C2: Abortion should be prohibited by the Government. This argument is logically valid, so the conclusions are true insofar as the premises are shown to be true. Therefore my job is to verify the truth of all the premises. P1 - a foetus is an innocent human being Firstly, a foetus is innocent because it hasn't committed any felony or immoral act. Secondly, a foetus is a human being. We can tell this by examining the definition of 'human being': 'Any individual of the genus Homo' (1) It is a biological fact that a foetus is part of the genus Homo, because it is an organism with Homo Sapiens DNA. To justify that it is indeed an organism, let's look at the definition: 'any living biological entity' (2) A foetus is a biological entity because it an organic entity composed of cells, and it is living because it experiences growth and metabolism, which is what categorises life.(3) Furthermore, biologist Matthew Marcello wrote that immediately after fertilisation, the resulting entity is an organism. (4) Therefore, a foetus is an organism of the genus Homo - a human being. This conclusion is also supported by countless medical and biological sources - the following are just a couple of examples: 'The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.' (5) ‘Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e. an embryo).’ (6) Therefore, the premise that a foetus is a human being is verified by both considerations of the definitions as well as scientific resources. P2 - all innocent human beings have a right to life From a legal basis, the right to life is established both in the US constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Within the constitution, it is stated in the 5th and 14th amendments, respectively: ‘Nor shall any person… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law’ (7) ‘Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law’ (8) Both of these affirm that all persons have a right to life that can be only be infringed by due process of law. Since Constitutional Law uses the legal definition of ‘person’, which is simply: ‘Human being’ (9) - all human beings are persons. Therefore I am justified in using the terms ‘person’ and ‘human being’ synonymously when considering matters of US law. The due process clause outlines that one's right to life can only be infringed by a fair trial and conviction that warrants the death penalty. Since an innocent human being cannot be fairly convicted of any crime (by definition), it follows that all innocent human beings have a right to life. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights echoes this, by stating in article 3: 'Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.' (10) Note that a right to life is a negative right; a right to life means you have a right to not be killed. This fact may prove crucial later on in this debate. C1 - A foetus has a right to life This logically follows from P1 and P2. P3 - Abortion contravenes the foetus's right to life Given that a foetus does have a right to life (C1), abortion contravenes it because the abortion procedure is an active procedure that kills the foetus. This premise is uncontroversial, even the most ardent pro-choicer accepts that abortion kills a foetus. P4 - That which contravenes a human being's rights should be prohibited by the Government This premise is verified by what the role of the government is. In the US Declaration of independence it is written: 'That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men' (11) This makes it pretty clear that the Government's role is to protect peoples' rights, and so it stands to reason that if an action infringes on someone's rights, the Government should prohibit said action in order to fulfil its duty of securing rights. Therefore, the government should prohibit actions that contravene peoples' rights. C2 - Abortion should be prohibited by the Government. This logically follows from C1, P3 and P4. Since I have affirmed all the premises, the conclusion that abortion should be prohibited (illegal) is affirmed. Hence I have fulfilled my burden of proof. Argument 2 - Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) P1: The NAP is true P2: Abortion contravenes the NAP P3: Any action that contravenes the NAP should be prohibited by the Government. C: Abortion should be prohibited by the Government P1 - The NAP is true The NAP is an axiom within political philosophy that forbids any initiation of aggression by one person to another. Aggression is defined as an encroachment on another's life, liberty or justly-acquired property (12). This principle is so fundamental that I can safely presume that both my opponent and the voters accept it as a truism. There are a few justifications for its veracity, including utilitarian and argumentation arguments, but I will justify it here by considering why such a principle is necessary in any civilised society. It is often very useful, if we want to find out what is necessary for a functioning society, to consider what life would be like without any governing authority, laws or moral rules. Human existence in this scenario would be in a 'state of nature' where any physically-possible action is permitted and allowed to happen without repercussion for the perpetrator. In the state of nature, non-aggressive acts such as playing music or writing stories will be permitted; but then again, aggressive acts such as rape, theft and murder will also be permitted. In an effort to curb the suffering caused by the various aggressions such as murder, governments are introduced with the power to punish the citizens within society. Now the government has three options: 1. Punish all actions 2. Punish some actions 3. Punish no actions Number 1 is absurd, since it would mean that people are punished for completely non-aggressive actions such as sewing or flower-arranging. Number 3 is useless as well, as then the Government may as well not exist if it isn't going to control society. We revert back to the state of nature with the Government standing idly by. Therefore, number 2 must be correct; the government should punish some acts but not punish others. This raises the question of what criteria separates the punishable acts and the non-punishable acts. The best criteria is whether the action is an aggression, this is because no other criteria can be thought of that makes a more pragmatic and utilitarian assessment of which actions should be punishable. It also very accurately forbids acts that contravene human rights but allows acts that do not. This criteria, formulated as the NAP, is necessary in a civilised society in order to veridically decide which actions are prohibited. Ergo, the NAP is true insofar as we live in a civilised society. P2 - Abortion contravenes the NAP Abortion is an initiation of aggression against a foetus (it kills it), and is therefore clearly forbidden by the NAP. P3 - Any action that contravenes the NAP should be prohibited by the Government. The justification for this premise is located in my justification for P1. The NAP decides what is a punishable/illegal act by the government, so it is necessary that the government sticks to this criteria and therefore prohibits acts that contravene the NAP. C - Abortion should be prohibited by the Government Logically follows from P1, P2 and P3. This second argument also affirms the resolution that abortion should be illegal. Conclusion I have presented two solid arguments that affirm the veracity of the statement 'abortion should be illegal'. Since these arguments are all logically sound, Con must successfully refute at least one of the premises in both arguments in order to negate the resolution. If at least one of my arguments goes unrefuted, I win the debate. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (3) http://biology.stackexchange.com... (4) http://genetics.wustl.edu... (5) http://www.nature.com... (6) Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7) https://www.law.cornell.edu... (8) https://www.law.cornell.edu... (9) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (10) http://www.un.org... (11) http://www.archives.gov... (12) https://en.wikipedia.org...