As he mentioned in the very first sentences that "one is forced to conclude that these practices are normally accepted", in these sentences, though he uses the word force to be incorporated based on arguments but throughout in his article he forced the reader to accept his arguments based on intuition less and power more. In an attempt to refute the conservative view that abortion is immoral, Tooley argues that he can defend a basic moral principle specifying a condition an organism must have in order to have a serious right to life. He states at the outset of the essay thatFurther, he goes on to say he is forced to conclude that abortion and infanticide are morally acceptable. By the 'condition an organism must have, it could be suggested that he means it possesses properties which give the right to life. He suggests both at the beginning and end of the essay, that species other than humans may actually satisfy the condition, or possess the properties that thus give them the right to life. If we accept this to be the case, thinking about the basic moral principles applied to right to life, then how humans treat animals is morally indefensible. Some philosophers might reason that that destroying other creatures as a means to survival of the human race is morally ethical.
Abortion is immoral if we accept the potentiality principle: The Conservatives' Defense Claims:
The potentiality principle described by the writer explains that the gradual and continuous development from zygote to human adult suggests that there is a property that is (i) possessed by human adults and (ii) gives any organism possessing this property a serious right to life. For any organism to have this right the property, it should be there on continuous basis instead of being gained during the course of life. So if any properties exist which satisfy (i) and (ii), possession of at least one of these means that any organism potentially possesses that property, because of its potentiality, (that it will come to have it during its development) then a right to life exists. The conservative standpoint does not need to define the properties, just the knowledge that adult humans possess them gives any human organism a right to life - the potential is there already. Abortion would deny that potential and so is immoral. This differentiation he makes by
dividing the ability at two levels: physiological and psychological. He states that the physiological properties are same at the fetal level if compared across the species but this property based on physiological characteristics does not allow some organism to enjoy the right to life, once someone reaches a level to attain the psychological characteristics sufficient enough to be recognized as possessing that property with serious right to life. In fact, he tries to defend the idea that the serious right to life is not granted right at the beginning of some organism's life at the zygote level, for example, in humans but there is some cut off point after which