Question

What are the subarguments/premise/conclusion/ loopholes

There is nothing immortal about abortion when it contributes to a woman’s well-being. Since consciousness is a function of brain structure and the brain structure of a fetus is akin to that of a nonhuman animal, it follows that a fetus’s consciousness is similar to that of a nonhuman animal. And since the value of an organism’s life depends upon the nature of its consciousness, the value of a fetus’s life is therefore similar to the value of the life of a nonhuman animal. Now the well-being of a fully conscious woman is surely more valuable than the life of an animal, as is amply demonstrated by the fact that we do not hesitate to kill animals if doing so contributes to our well-being. Accordingly, the well-being of a woman is of greater moral value than the life of a fetus. And obviously, if the woman’s well being is more valuable than the fetus’s life, then there is nothing wrong with taking the fetus’s life for the sake of that well-being.

Answer 1

The article strongly misses the fact that killing fetus is already inhuman and illegal despite it increasingly adds more value to womans well being. So all in all it is completely paradoxical to kill any fetus or nonhuman animal even if it does not add to well being to nature or society as it is illegal.