A Debate On The Morality Of Abortion

1575 Words7 Pages
The reason I would define the term human this way is as follows. If you have two groups of objects which are similar but separate you define these two groups by the defining characteristics. Take for example mammals and birds both are warm-blooded some of each can fly. All birds lay eggs and one species of mammal does as well. A defining characteristic though is that every mammal has hair and no bird does. The same thing goes the other way, every bird has feathers no mammal does. What characteristic then separates humans from non-human animals? The characteristic that makes sense to me and that has moral significance is clearly our ability to love, to put the needs of others before ourselves, and do it regardless of the personnel cost. Without this ability we would not even be having a debate on the morality of abortion. Thus I am arguing that the human ability to love and have a moral compass is what gives us our inherent value. Some might object that I added the potential clause to the sentence “To be human is to be at once a member of the species Homo sapiens and to have at the very least the potential to love and have a moral compass.” just that it might include the unborn. This is not the case, it is necessary because the unborn aren’t the only humans that have the potential and yet don’t exercise this potential. It was added not only to encompass fetuses but also to encompass the Psychopaths as well as the handicapped as well and therefore reflect realty. A Psychopath
Open Document