Ok, I accept that the toenail analogy was weak, but I still want to argue that there is a difference between human (adj), human (noun) and human being (noun).
You are right Damo, we are having an undeclared abortion debate. I usually avoid these as I have no great passion either way, it is merely a mental exercise to me, but lets do it anyway...
I'll ignore the utilitarian argument for now, and concentrate on the rights argument, of which whether or not a preborn (for want of a neutral term) is considered a human being is part.
I don't know your personal opinions but assume that, even if just as devil's advocate, you are willing to argue the pro-rights position?
The crux of the rights argument surmounts to be that as a human being, the preborn have the same rights to life as the 'postborn'.
To attack this, I could take a few approaches. Firstly I could attack the idea of rights itself as a false construct, one that doesn't exist innately, and that will and capability are all that matters. I won't however. This may be reality, but we overcome this and build moral standards for a good reason.
The second would be to use a contractual argument. I'm sure you are aware of what the contractual argument is, but I'll recap anyway...
Basically it states that all rights must have corresponding duties, that rights and duties act as a contract between society and the individual. To possess rights, one must be capable of being able to enact the corresponding duties. Thus, only individuals who are rationally capable of enacting those duties are eligible for those rights.
This might be a shocking thing to state, but remembering all debate must be taken discompassionately, we can also recognise this exists in current societies. The mentally ill, for example, who demonstrate themselves incapable of rationally enacting duties, have many of their rights removed. This, incidentally is the distinction I make between human and human being.
I will try to pre-empt some of your replies...
Reductio per absurdum - If the ability to rationally fulfill duties is what defines rights, then children have no rights, the mentally ill, the senile etc...
To counter this, I would simply state that this isn't an absurd consequence, that in reality, what caters for these is the duty of compassion. And it is here that the utilitarian argument comes in. I am aware of the precarious nature of utilitarianism, that it is a guarantee of nothing, but then even a contract is a guarantee of nothing, aside from bringing about fear of consequences.
Or simply you could sidestep the contractual argument, and argue that all life has value, that it is life that dictates rights. To which I would argue that value is dictated by the person doing the judging, and isn't absolute.
