An argument against elective abortion

[Ryft]

Whilst your argument is indeed valid, the problem I find is with premise 2. You say it is correct semantically and genetically. I would argue that since we all vary genetically, using that as a basis isn't that powerful of an argument. Semantically, it depends on who you talk to; most pro-choice people would argue that an embryo isn't properly considered a human being until it can survive without the mother

First, the fact that "we all vary genetically" does not affect the argument (or second premise); despite the genetic differences between you and I, we are both still members of the species Homo sapiens. Second, attention should be given to the fact that my argument is not predicated on humans as 'beings' or 'persons'; the one is a point of philosophy, the other is a point of law, but my argument is predicated on a point of science, that the unborn belong to the species Homo sapiens.

Most pro-life people would argue that it's a human from conception.

I should hope that both sides argue the same thing, since all available scientific evidence indicates that two members of one species reproduce members of that species.

---

---

Not sure persuasion necessitates validity or soundness.

A point which I had already addressed in my original post.

And what is your proof for the first premise? Euthenasia, for instance, is the deliberate killing of an inocent human yet not necessarily morally wrong.

An undercutter which I had already addressed in my original post.

Also, this could quite quickly become a debate about what it mean to be human; thus, you'll need to clarify that.

I did, in my original post.

Assuming that you just mean 'Homo sapeins', I would have to ask why does this argument stop at humans? What makes humanity special?

It is not about Homo sapiens being special; it is about Homo sapiens being the subject. It is a fallacy to construe an argument against the killing of X innocent creatures as being in any way for the killing of all ~X innocent creatures.

Is turning off the life support of someone unlikely to regain any normality not the deliberate killing of an innocent human?

Euthanasia is an undercutter which I had already addressed in my original post.

If there are any exceptions to the first premise, then it is not necessarily true that the deliberate killing of an inocent human is wrong, so your argument is not sound in that respect.

You risk committing the Special Pleading fallacy here. If elective abortions do not qualify under a defined exception, then the argument holds. (For example, you referenced euthanasia, that turning off the life support of someone "unlikely to regain any normality" is arguably a moral good. That may be so, but it is an exception that does not include elective abortions; the probability of normality for the unborn is very high after nine months of life support.)

---

---

- argumentum ad populum
- presupposition fallacy
- equivocation fallacy
- continuum fallacy

Ipse dixit. A fallacy is not proven by force of assertion.

---

---

One thing I would like to see established is the definition of morally wrong here. ... We need to decide what makes an act moral or immoral before we can put out a blanket statement like the first premise in a logical statement.

The argument does not depend on any one moral theory. It suffices that the reader simply has one. The only people who reject the first premise (i.e., who think the deliberate killing of innocent humans is not morally wrong) are those who reject morality as either meaningless or irrelevant. The argument can be evaluated even under consequentialist moral theories, like your Fat Man test speaks to. But as I have pointed out elsewhere, any exceptions to the first premise that elective abortions do not qualify under (e.g., euthanasia) means the argument holds.

---

---

The fetus isn't a human. It's a potential human.

Interesting. What species, then, might a 28-week old fetus belong to?

Without sentience, there are no questions of morality.

Again, interesting. So on your view, sexually molesting a coma patient is not a moral issue.

---

---

The first premise is an absolute moral imperative, which I reject outright. For example, I fully support voluntary euthanasia.

Euthanasia is an undercutter I had already addressed in my original post.

The second premise an opinion based on religious doctrine, not evidence.

Incorrect. That the unborn belong to the species Homo sapiens is a point of science, not religion, philosophy, or law.

I'm aware of no evidence that a foetus is human being before it is viable ex utero.

What scientific evidence determines that a fetus is not of the species Homo sapiens prior to 23 weeks gestation?

---

---

As others (including theVOID and DeistPaladin) have said, membership in the species Homo sapiens does not automatically confer moral status. Rather, it ought to be non-arbitrary factors like the being's ability to conceive itself as existing over time, sentience, etc. So I take issue with Premise 1.

In what way is 'species' an arbitrary category but 'self-awareness' is not?