You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is abortion something a woman does to her body or to some other living entity?
I guess we have to show that the fetus is only part of the mother so that she can have it removed as one would remove a wart.
We also have to show that the fetus is NOT part of the father so that we can claim that the father has no claim, no rights, no interest, no say in the life/fate of the fetus and that ONLY the mother has the final say in the life/fate of the fetus.
In there it talks about the whether the egg shell belongs to the fetus or the mother and whether the eggshell is just a container.
I would argue that the uterus is part of the mother.
I would also argue that the uterus is a container.
I would then argue that the fetus is not part of the father. Just because the father contributed sperm, does NOT mean that the fetus is part of the father.
I would then argue that the fetus is not part of the mother either. I mean, just because she contributed the egg does not mean that the fetus is part of her body. What holds true for the father, holds true for the mother. And science backs me up on this. The mother's immune system would kill the fetus if it weren't for the placenta.
"The placenta functions as an immunological barrier between the mother and the fetus, creating an immunologically privileged site."
If it were not for the placenta, the mother's immune system would kill the fetus. The fetus is its own entity. Once the egg and the sperm fuse, it is no longer part of the father and it is no longer part of the mother. it is its own entity.
But... if the fetus is its own entity, and it is not part of the mother, it cannot be compared to a wart. When the mother has a fetus removed, she is not doing something to her body, she is doing something to another living entity.
But... if the fetus is its own entity, and it is not part of the mother, it cannot be compared to a wart. When the mother has a fetus removed, she is not doing something to her body, she is doing something to another living entity.
That does not exactly give the full picture. The fetus cannot exist without the mother. The mother can exist without the fetus. So it is not as simple as claiming it is distinct entity.
But that's not exactly being charitable to his implication. In his scenario the fetus is dependent upon the woman's body (thus giving her the right to rid of it), whereas in the afterbirth scenario the baby is dependent upon whomever.
And if you mean 'distinct' as in they are both 'persons' then this would just be a (contentious) presupposition.
There you have touched the underlying truth. The mother should be allowed to kill the baby before its born because the baby is dependent on the mother for life. Then, naturally anyone sustaining the life of the baby after birth should be allowed to kill the baby as well - right?
This is a contentious presupposition that essentially eliminates the debate if assumed. Since a sizable number of people reject this assumption (hence the ongoing debate), one must require you to support this assertion.
By 'distinct' i meant other living entity, which is what the debate is about. Given I was referring to babies already born, I don't think it would be contentious to consider the baby a person, though I wasn't thinking along those lines. Whether or not a fetus should be considered a person is usually the fundamental argument of these debates.
I understand and I agree with you. My contention was the lack of charity his position received. This isn't my view, I just reillustrated his view to exemplify how his position isn't entirely erroneous.
The important distinction then, would be that a fetus relies on a specific individual while the baby relies on care from anyone. This doesn't eliminate the notion that a fetus is a distinct entity, it simply acknowledges it's requirements.
Acknowledgment of requirements suggests understanding of requirements. I would say it is just limited by the fact that it needs the mother. The mother does not need it to survive. I guess you could define it as distinct as long as you clearly define what distinct entity means.
Distinct is "recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type".
To say that the fetus is distinct is to say that it is another living entity per the debate. To argue that the fetus requires the mothers body to exist is not sufficient to determine that the fetus is not some other living entity. While determining that a fetus is a distinct living entity may not be sufficient to carry the entire abortion debate, it is an important aspect which this topic was meant to focus on.
Tumors are created by damaged forms of the hosts DNA while fetus's have different (though related) human DNA entirely. The point of isolating a single variable in a complex subject is to understand the subject one piece at a time. If a small singular aspect of the debate lends weight to one side or the other, it does not mean the debate is over. It just means we can move on to resolve another aspect of the complex subject.
Tumors are created by damaged forms of the hosts DNA while fetus's have different (though related) human DNA entirely.
That still fits the simple definition provided.
The point of isolating a single variable in a complex subject is to understand the subject one piece at a time. If a small singular aspect of the debate lends weight to one side or the other, it does not mean the debate is over. It just means we can move on to resolve another aspect of the complex subject.
That is a common problem solving method. The issue here is that it is not an analytical problem, it is an opinion issue.
Distinct is "recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type".
This general definition is vague. That is why a tumor is also a distinct entity. A finger and a toe are also distinct entities. Now you will have to define "living" for "living distinct entity" to try and distinguish an embryo from a tumor/finger/toe.
You're right flewk, and I am convinced. There is fundamentally no difference between a tumor, a tow, and a fetus.
They are all distinct entities by the current definition given. That means aborting a fetus, removing a finger, or removing a tumor would all be considered removing distinct entities. Should you expand the definition as I have already suggested, you would begin to eliminate other non-fetus entities from the list.
The title of the debate refers to "some other living entity" which was the sense in which I used the term distinct earlier in this debate. The definition of distinct may appear overly broad unless you can recognize it in context.
It's still inside her body. Therefore she can remove it from her body if she wishes. A tapeworm is another living entity but a woman can still remove it from her body. Furthermore a fetus in the stage of pregnancy of which abortion is allowed, is alive in the same way a plant is alive. It is not alive as in sentient.
Plants don't have a nervous system. They have no nerves to carry messages of pain, no a brain to process them. I can't see how a plant could feel pain. Even if plants can feel pain I doubt it would be the same kind of pain an animal feels.
Just because plants respond to being destroyed doesn't mean they are aware of it. It could just be a reflex action that occurs without any conscious thought, like how the human body can react to a stimulus without any conscious thought e.g. releasing hormones.
Humans tend to believe they are extra special, that they have a conscious that is on a higher plane. In the end, nothing in science suggests this. We are still just a bag of meat and bones responding to the various stimulus bombarding our PNS. Even though plants lack a CNS, they still have a something like a PNS and communicate pain to other plants as well as their surroundings. Does this constitute as feeling?
It is sort of like how humans think they think things taste good rather than the stimulus is hardwired to appeal to the brain. Umami tastes good because your receptors tell your brain that you are getting proteins, well at least amino acids. Fear is just a series of chemical reactions in response to some external stimulus. What is the difference between your chemical reactions and the plants? Is it because your reaction is more complex so it must be a "conscious" reaction? Is it because a CNS is the only structure that can process the feeling of pain? Nothing else can evolve to this acme of sentience?
Why the hell did you ask for a link if you were only going to dispute it? You could have disputed that guy without asking for the link. See? This is why I don't bother with links.
Out of curiosity, is this a serious question of yours, or more trolling (not that you would admit if it was the latter). I'd think trolling, but I have seen you express this sentiment quite a few times.
He is just adopting a pro-life persona. He rarely ever expresses anything that he seriously believes in on this website. He just loves attention and wants to get as many points as possible.
More trolling. I like TheEccentric. So I only troll him just a little bit. Not really hard trolling. But trolling just the same. Let's just say that I'm a kinder, gentler, troll.
That is not the question. The question is "Is abortion something a woman does to her body or to some other living entity?"
We are not discussing the morality or the legality of the practice of the abortion, we are just accessing what it is.
You comment shows that even though you support abortion, you agree that it is not targeting her body as you describe the mother and the fetus as two separate organisms.
As for the fetus not being alive because it is not sentient, that is wrong. Life and sentience are two different things. Sentience is not one of the requirements of life, as described in any biology 101 class.
I think it is an interesting question, but it would not be relevant using the logic of self-defense. People can legally defend themselves from things attacking them which can't survive without them - e.g. parasites, etc. and people can defend themselves from other people.
And, I think I asked this before - you believe you have a right to defend yourself not just to preserve your life, but also to protect you from harm, correct?
I believe that self defense is a right, but I do not believe that abortion is self defense unless it is to save the mother's life or if the baby will die anyway.
So, if a woman was to say that because of the definite financial and emotional/physical effects along with the other potential harms - that she felt the need for self-defense - you would understand where she was coming from and think taking lethal action should be legal, correct?
Where did I say anything about killing an unborn child?
If your friend got robbed and she called you after and said that because of the financial harm and the emotional harm the robber caused her, and the potential for great physical harm, etc. - that she felt the need for self-defense and killed the robber - would you understand where she was coming from and think that what she did should be legal?
Long term mental harm from a pregnancy? I don't know what that is.
Long term physical harm from a pregnancy? Mother must decide.
Long term economic harm from a pregnancy? How? Poor people get financial support during pregnancy. After the pregnancy, the baby can be adopted. What long term economic harm? Most women can work until near the end of the pregnancy. There are laws protecting a pregnant woman's job. I don't know what this is.
Long term mental harm from a pregnancy? I don't know what that is.
You don't think the difficulty of raising a child can cause long term stress and troubles? And I know adoption exists, but giving up a child can be equally, if not more painful.
Long term physical harm from a pregnancy? Mother must decide.
I agree. But my argument was asking if abortion should be considered ok if there is non-lethal physical harm on the line. So that's ok?
Long term economic harm from a pregnancy? How? Poor people get financial support during pregnancy. After the pregnancy, the baby can be adopted. What long term economic harm? Most women can work until near the end of the pregnancy. There are laws protecting a pregnant woman's job. I don't know what this is.
If giving a child up for adoption is too difficult emotionally for the mother, can you argue that the financial troubles of raising a child are non existent? And arguing "Most women" can do this or making the claim "poor people get financial support during pregnancy" (can you provide proof/expand on why this is substantial? I don't know much about this.) doesn't extend to all. This is about specific irregularities, as clearly not every women wants an abortion. If someone is in a situation where the financial support is not enough, or they need to put the money they have into other things, such as business, education, health, etc.. Do you honestly believe that could never happen?
But lets assume that these things can exist. Could an exception be made? If you're going to make an exception if the baby/mother would die anyways (as per the comment I was responding to), would the exception expand to a situation where there are short term difficulties, or possible non-lethal harm in regards to physical, mental, or economic health?
Ok. How about this. Each parent contributes 50% of the genetic material. Each parent has a 50% stake in the fetus. In order for the fetus to be carried to term, both parents need to agree. In order for the fetus to be aborted, both parents need to agree. The exceptions are if the mother's life is in danger or it's a rape/incest situation.
Ok, that's closer to correct, but that would only work if the baby was being grown outside of both of the parent's bodies. After the women has become pregnant, the man's physical health will remain unchanged whether the mother gets an abortion or not. The mother, on the other hand, has to go through 9 months of inhibited living. So how does a 50/50 stake make sense?
Let preface the following with, I am not sure I understand what your concern is, so I'm going to answer based on what I think you mean.
Regardless of the agreement, if the woman's health is in danger, she makes the final call. If you want something similar for men, in order to make it more equal then, if the father's health deteriorates to the point where he can no longer afford a child, he gets to make the final choice.
As far as the 9 months of pregnancy, are you saying that the woman is forced to go through 9 months of pregnancy when she doen't want to?
Well, Libprolifer made the argument that abortion was ok if the mother or baby's life was in danger. My question was if her opinion was that it would be alright if the mother was in some sort of danger, but of the non-lethal variety.
I think you're saying that's alright, well then you are prochoice, because you are saying that if the women feels she is in a situation where she does not want to remain pregnant (because she feels as though a pregnancy will be hurtful to her physical, emotional, or economic health) then she should have the option for an abortion. Thus, it's her choice, and you are pro-choice.
If you want something similar for men, in order to make it more equal then, if the father's health deteriorates to the point where he can no longer afford a child, he gets to make the final choice.
Can you elaborate more on this? I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying. Do you mean that if a women is pregnant and the father is dying, the father gets to force the women to not get an abortion if she wants one? Or force her to get one even if she wants to keep the child? Please explain.
As far as the 9 months of pregnancy, are you saying that the woman is forced to go through 9 months of pregnancy when she doen't want to?
What I am saying is that the current situation is not balanced.
If a woman and the father agree, great! The mother is happy, the father is happy.
If the woman does not want the child and the father does, screw dad! She doesn't have to go through 9 months. The mother is happy.
If the woman wants the child and the father does not because he can't afford it, screw dad! He has to pay child support for 18 years! The mother is happy.
Now when you look at 9 months of pregnancy VS 18 years of child support, and when you consider that it's a life we're talking about, having to put up with 9 months doesn't seem so terrible.
The current situation does not give fathers any rights to their genetic material.
The current situation places no responsibility on the mother.
I wasn't talking about when life begins. I was talking about the relationship between two organisms.
Good question. The baby is not part of the mother's body. He or she has its own genetic code that is seperate from that of both parents.
You implied that because the baby has separate genetic code, then it must be a separate organism. Many mutualistic/endosymbiotic organisms perish when separated from one another. They have different genetic code.
The fetus is a baby. What genetic change happens at birth? The baby has the same genetic code before birth as he does after birth. This is a basic scientific FACT!
Gene expression changes throughout development. In fact, gene expression changes throughout your entire life. While the entire code may be the same (mostly), the active portions can differ greatly. Some genes will only be active for a very short period in a person's life and remain dormant forever after.
Making that claim doesn't make it true. Does that mean sperm and eggs are alive, as they are genetically different when independent from eachother? Is a single celled organism worth the same as a fully-grown person? Why does this mean that life has begun?
genetic differentiation is a mechanic for survival that outperforms mitosis. otherwise we would be massive bacteria, self copying, with minimal evolution and without the 'change in numbers' factor bacteria have in evolution. meiosis not only provides evolution through copying errors as with mitosis, but also scrambles a load of other information as well. better for the rate at which humans reproduce and the rate the environment changes at.
that said you could still say that people are people when they are different from people. basing human identity on genetics to an extent i can agree with. but basing human value on genetics seems arbitrary.
You are wrong. If the unborn child is a person, he or she has the right to live. Saying that the personhood of the child is irrelavant is like saying the humanity of the blacks is irrelavant to the issue of slavery.
