well spoken. i studied a lot about abortion in this ethics class. one of the most convincing articles that ive read on it breaks down the argument very well. it begins by laying out the two different arguments, which are parallel arguments. proving that a fetus is a human being or not is enough to prove the morality behind abortion.
a anti-abortionist would say that life is present right at conception because the fetus looks like a baby and possesses characteristics like a genetic code which is necessary and sufficient to be called human. this is obvious and is sufficient to say abortions immoral.
a pro-abortionist would use a similar strategy. fetuses are not social being. this is enough to say that they aren't human and therefore abortion is not a wrongful killing.
now we come to a stand off. the first saying "it is always wrong to take human life" and the latter, "being a person is what gives you moral worth, only persons have the right to live".
now each side is either too broad or narrow in their description of the wrongness of killing. according to the anti-abortionist, it would be bad to kill human cancerous cells, they are alive and human, their moral principle concerning killing is too broad. then they change to say "its bad to end the life of human beings" and we are back at the argument of whether or not the fetus is a human being.
whereas the pro-abortionist, like you said, runs into trouble in that their description is too narrow, what about handicapped and comatose people. attempts to patch this problem up are made in claiming that even kids and the unproductive or handicapped are of social worth and moral being, which is just as big a stretch and arbitrary as the anti-abortionist saying that the definition of human beings includes fetuses. its a standoff.
there are more problems with both sides arguments. anti-abortionist are grounding all their claims in the idea that it is prima facie (always, no matter what) to kill a human being. if they mean human bring in the biological sense, then you run into a problem of why a biological difference makes someone human or not. if thats the case then how can you base a moral conclusion on number of chromosomes, isn't that a biological difference like skin or hair color? if you mean human-being in the moral sense, well you can't really take it into account in this way because that is exactly what needs to be established.
but the pro-choice position also has problems. by saying "only persons have the right to live" and they define person in terms of psychological characteristics, then they must explain why psychological characteristics should make a moral difference. the standoff continues, if a pro-choicer must explain how psychological characteristics should make a moral difference, anti-abortionist must explain why biological characteristics should make a moral difference, and vice-versa.
if either side says a person is a person on purely moral grounds it doesn't help them escape or prove their point: neither has resources or facts to back up that claim.
stay with me a little longer,
so far both sides are wrong in their moral generalization, if a answer came from why killing is wrong rather than arguing the legitimacy of their moral claims, which is what all these claims and generalizations are based on(the essence of the wrongness of killing), then an answer may be found.
so it is wrong to kill us. why is it wrong? there are many answers. because then others would loose good experiences with us, or because it makes whoever killed us brutal, or even better, killing is bad because its effect on the victim. the loss of someone's life ends all experiences, activities, enjoyment that would otherwise be ones future. the loss of such experiences and future personal life, which are valuable, or means towards something valuable, to either us or our friends and family. this natural property, that killing is serious wrong because of the loss of ones future, is the best explanation to what makes killing bad. since fetuses have a valuable future ahead of them, they have a right to life, and this right to life makes them human, and therefore bad to kill them.
if someone retorts with a good counter-argument i will continue a debate with more counter-arguments and their debunking, but i highly doubt this will be read by many people and i want to nap.
also, i myself am not sure where i stand on the topic of abortion, it is a very difficult subject. one of my major problems and the only thing of which i'm sure about is the implications that come with making abortion illegal. i do not like that it teaches people or makes people feel and act as though they don't have to face the consequences of their actions. this attitude is not healthy for themselves or the community and that is my biggest object with pro-choice. also, this wasnt written just to argue with you drew, i just replied to the only post i read, a respected opinion, and i figure it'd get read more as a reply of yours. so thats my two cents. hope people read this, took a while, and ill look for a link to the article if anyone shows interest.