There are four main ways in which abortion advocates will argue:
Peter Singer's influential defence of abortion argues that (1) it doesn't matter if the pre-born are human, because species membership is not relevant for moral consideration, and (2) even though the pre-born are human, they are not persons1), and therefore don't have moral status.
He argues that the moral question for abortion should be based on a utilitarian calculation which compares the preferences of a woman against the preferences of the fetus – and does not consider a fetus or newborn of having many, if any, serious interests.2) He agrees with pro-lifers that birth is not relevant, so he bites the bullet and says that infanticide isn't intrinsically wrong either – the same argument used against the sanctity of pre-born human life applies against the sanctity of newborn human life.
Three primary texts:
the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life. Rethinking Life and Death, p. 105
the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. Practical Ethics reference
Objections:
discussions about other types of entities that may/may not deserve moral consideration–aliens, AI, animals, angels etc.
definitions. Preference utilitarianism
Sources:
Refactor this in terms of two core components to the argument: (1) speciesism, (2) personhood (self-awareness, etc. Kaczor 30-35) David Boonin's functionalism, separate seminar?
mine Klusendorf's handling of this for primary source references (Lee, George, Mary Anne Warren, Jan Narveson, Peter Singer, etc.) – may warrant separate seminars. http://prolifetraining.com/Articles/Five-Bad-Ways.htm