I tried to cut every non-vital part of the very first post.
I. Pro-Choice Arguments
The pro-choice side stands for abortion being basically legal. Though there may be some who would limit abortion, most stand for abortion
on demand. In this view, an individual abortion does not need its own justification. Legally, a woman doesn't need to give a reason why she wants an abortion—if she wants it, she gets it. The very label "pro-choice" indicates this, and the fetus does not have any rights. It is fairly safe to say that just about any pro-choice advocate will cite one of the following five arguments in support of abortion being basically legal.
A. The Main Four Arguments for Abortion
The first four arguments are used much more commonly than the last one, and the they are also very easy to dismantle when compared to the last one.
(1) A fetus is not alive
Let's be clear: it obviously matters whether a fetus is alive. If it were true that a fetus is not alive, it could not be killed. It would be a mistake to object to killing something that isn't alive in the first place.
But a fetus is alive. This is beyond question. Even before conception, the two reproductive cells are alive. Thus, the argument that a fetus is nonliving may be often repeated—spreading and multiplying in popular discussion—but it is dead wrong. As an argument for abortion being legal, it cannot stand.
(2) A fetus is not human
Some admit that a fetus is alive, but do not believe that it is human. Like the previous argument, this would clearly make a difference, because most of us understand that killing a cow is not murder. If the fetus is not human, it cannot be entitled to human rights.
But, just like the previous objection, it is completely false. When two human reproductive cells unite, the result is a fertilized egg with a full set of human genes. Obviously, the fetus is not fully developed before birth, but it doesn't have to be to be human; neither is a seven-year-old, and seven-year-olds are undoubtedly human. One doesn't need to be an adult to be human.
(3) A fetus is only a part of the mother
Some come very close to realizing that a fetus is a human by saying that it is merely
part of a human. If a fetus were merely an extension of the mother, abortion would be no different than removing a kidney or an arm. Having one's tonsils out or having an amputation is not killing anyone, only removing a part of the body. The implied right of privacy (first cited in Roe v. Wade) plays prominently in this argument, since a woman has control over her own body, and if she needs an arm or an appendix removed by a surgeon, the government shouldn't be interfering.
Just like the previous two, it would make sense if it were true, but the fetus is not simply a part of the mother. It has some of the mother's DNA, that's for sure, but it also has some of the father's DNA. Your arm has
your DNA (which you inherited from both your parents), not yours mixed with someone else's. A fetus is not
part of a human, it
is a human.
(4) A fetus is a parasite
Some see no problem with getting rid of a fetus because they call it a parasite. It is inside another life form, it gains energy from the mother, and often causes other undesirable effects like morning sickness. Who would argue that a mosquito should be protected?
Before anything else, I want to point out how it blatantly contradicts two of the previous objections. Since only living things can be parasites, the idea of a nonliving fetus is incompatible with the parasitism argument. Also, a part of your body, like an arm or kidney, can never be a parasite even if it becomes dreadfully diseased. Therefore a fetus cannot simultaneously be a part of the mother and a parasite of the mother.
Of course, not only do the people who use the parasitism argument need to make up their minds, they also need to get their facts straight. A fetus is not a parasite. Here are the definitions of "parasite" and "parasitism," as defined by Merriam-Webster's dictionary:
"Parasitism":
"Parasite":
Since a parasitic relationship must be between two organisms of different species, a fetus is not a parasite. Also, parasites usually enter the host from outside, while a fetus is born from reproductive cells—one of which is the mother's own. A fetus isn't
taking energy from its host, and in fact the mother's body helps nourish the fetus. The relationship between a parasite and its host is fundamentally different from the one between a mother and offspring. (When parents are frustrated by their teenager eating them out of house and home, they might use the term in a humorous way that we know better than to take literally!) If a mother doesn't want the fetus, that doesn't make it a parasite. The sole purpose of calling a fetus a parasite is to make it sound like it has done something worthy of death, which is self-serving and revisionist. A fetus is offspring, and offspring are not parasites of their mothers.
- - -
The four preceding pro-choice arguments are fundamentally inaccurate. Perhaps that is why some attempt to patch them up by saying that these words have different meanings than their ordinary definitions. Consider the following three statements, especially noting the bold emphasis I've added:
(
Source)
These quotes, particularly the last one (since when does the law take into account souls?), show people on the pro-choice side reduced to
whining about the fact that the oft-repeated "fetus is not human" argument is poorly-reasoned garbage. A "metaphorical sense" of the word "human"? Please forgive me for thinking that this sort of
hedging has no place in rational discussion. The ordinary definition should suffice.
However, those who make these objections often have at the back of their minds a different pro-choice argument entirely, and that introduces us to the personhood argument.
B. The Personhood Argument
(5) A fetus is not a person
Some argue that without certain higher-order thoughts, a fetus is not a person. To be a person, you need self-awareness, rationality, and some specific emotional capabilities. A fetus, it is argued, is neither self-aware, nor rational, nor capable of advanced emotions.
I will wait to describe why this is supposed to matter. Before that, here are a few important challenges to the non-personhood of the fetus:
First, note that the personhood argument is stated dogmatically. However, it may be worthwhile to note that the other four arguments are sometimes stated in less-dogmatic versions. For example, "We don't know when life begins," "We don't know when the fetus becomes human," etc. Thus, the personhood argument might be exaggerated, in which case it would be better stated, "We
don't know when a fetus becomes a person." This removes a lot of the sting of this argument, since its whole point is that persons have certain rights (including a right to life). If the fetus might be a person, then it might have rights that abortion would violate.
Second, when does a fetus become a person? Is it a person several days before birth? A few days after the start of the third trimester? Could it be before the third trimester? If a fetus has to become a person, the point at which it does is
absolutely crucial to this argument, and the personhood argument itself indicates that no abortions should happen after that point.
Third, with the fetus in a location that strongly hinders interaction with other persons, it's kinda hard to show that it couldn't start emoting or interacting rationally (on a newborn's level or slightly less)
if it were outside its mother. Even a fetus three days before birth hasn't really interacted with the world. Thus this whole argument may reduce to "a fetus is in a location where it can't interact in certain ways." Of itself, it might not really be incapable of interacting using certain emotions.
Fourth, it is not clear that personhood can be gained or lost. When a child is two hours old, it can't use language, it's reasoning is certainly minimalistic at best, and near-constant crying is not evidence of empathy. (And "self-aware" might be a poor label for some newborns.) I'm not sure a fetus can be excluded from personhood so easily.
However, since I've already hinted at why the personhood argument is thought to matter to its proponents, I'll explain that with a quote:
In the bold emphasis I've added, you see the foundation of the personhood argument. You also see its chief flaw.
Just about everyone agrees that plenty of non-persons
have rights and
deserve moral consideration. I know of no one who would argue that a dog is a person, but dog fighting is rightly outlawed. We should have no problem recognizing that a fetus should begiven more consideration than a dog.
Some argue that the law is species-ist if something like a cow can be killed while a fetus can't. "Why should the law favor humans?" they ask. Yet the laws of just about every nation favor humans, since no nations of which I am aware allow animals to, say, own property or enter into business contracts. The decision in Roe v. Wade was supposed to be based on language in the Constitution; it was not ostensibly an interpretation designed to radically change how we view the relationship between human and animal rights. And it is also significant that no one seems to question the general use of the phrase "human rights"
except in an abortion debate.
Therefore, while the first four pro-choice arguments were completely false, the fifth is uncertain
but irrelevant, unless one assumes incorrectly that persons are the only ones who have rights according to the law.
II. Pro-life Arguments
Many pro-life arguments have been distorted by pro-choice debaters. Often the pro-life side is accused of trying to impose a religious viewpoint on the nation. These errors are due in part to some pro-life debaters carelessly stating their arguments and due in part to many pro-choice debaters not paying attention. As you will see, pro-life arguments do not require the acceptance of any religious position. I want to state up-front that my argument is not based on the existence of souls. This was a major issue about which I disagreed with the basic premise of the
one past abortion debate. Since when do laws make mention of souls? (As far as I'm aware, none do.) If no law makes mention of souls, and if some people doubt they exist, the debate must proceed on other grounds—and it can.
A. Abortion is homicide
Most of the evidence for this position has already been outlined above, in the responses to the main four pro-choice arguments.
First, a fetus is a separate human. It has a full set of human genes and it is not a part of its mother.
Second, the intentional killing of a human is homicide. Homicide is illegal except in those cases where it has sufficient justification. One example of justifiable homicide would be self-defense.
A few aspects of this argument must be noted immediately. (1) Note that I use the term "fetus." This term applies to an unborn child
from about two months after conception (until birth). Other words, like "
zygote" or "
embryo," could have been used, but I wasn't attempting to limit my argument to early-term abortions. And though some may argue that it doesn't happen (as we'll discuss later on), there is apparently no law stating that abortions must be performed early. It seems quite a few of them are performed (perfectly legally under Roe v. wade) long after the unborn child reaches the stage of development where it is called a fetus.
(2) Note that I described abortion as "
intentional killing." Though some pro-choice debaters have tried to apply pro-life arguments to
spontaneously-aborted fetuses, obviously no one can make it illegal for them to die naturally! Intent differentiates types of homicide and degrees of murder. Intent matters.
(3) Note that I described the fetus as "a
separate human." As discussed above, a fetus is not
part of the mother. Even some generally reasonable debaters seem unable to see this distinction, thinking that pro-life arguments would prohibit the killing of each of our individual cells. Yet there is a difference between something being human (i.e., a human arm, a human cell), and being a separate human. A fetus is separate. An arm is not. Furthermore, as discussed above, a fetus obviously doesn't have to be an adult human in order to be a human.
(4) Since I'm sure some will be thinking this because of what I just said, note that I didn't say a fetus was "a human being." As I found out, many pro-choice debaters take the term "human being" to mean "human person." The use of the term "human being" seems to be the whole reason that people objected to the new Missouri law that we discussed in our previous abortion debate (at least as far as the
Huffington Post article indicated). However, the word "being" is not quite so specific, as some
dictionary entries should demonstrate. In my opinion, the different uses of "human being" make the phrase ambiguous and thus not useful for this debate.
B. Potential justifications for abortion
Even though few seem to acknowledge that abortion is homicide, some seem subconsciously aware that individual abortions may need independent justification, so they offer reasons applying to individual cases. However, it is often assumed that almost all abortions are requested for essentially good reasons. For example, as one user has said,
This makes a straw man out of the pro-life position; homicide is no laughing matter. Few if any would argue that women are actually getting abortions just for
fun, but that doesn't prove that the reasons offered justify the abortion, nor that all or even most abortions are requested by women who are truly desperate. It matters whether homicide is justified, not whether the women think they need it.
I do not hesitate to say that in cases where it is certain that neither the mother nor the fetus will survive delivery, abortion is justifiable homicide. This self-defense may be a sad matter, but it is clearly justified. In cases where the fetus can survive delivery, but the mother will not, this is still self-defense even if it is a difficult choice to make.
Other reasons may not be quite so clear, but I still have a great deal of sympathy for them. If a woman is raped, I do not think killing the fetus is so clearly the right answer, but I don't seek to criminalize abortion in such a case. She is a victim, so I do not argue that the law should require her to carry the baby. However, I never could understand why people cite incest alongside rape as a reason for abortion. (It seems almost an automatic response for some.) Could they possibly mean, "A couple, married despite being too closely related by their state’s laws, should be allowed to get an abortion whenever they want"? Most likely, they mean "incestuous rape," so they should probably just say "rape." Some also argue that a mother has the right to abort a fetus that would be born with birth defects. In such cases, I think caution would be better, for it is certainly possible for technology to help overcome difficulties for baby's continued living. In sum, potential justifications for abortion are part of a continuum from "clearly sufficient" to "clearly insufficient."
There are other commonly cited reasons that are quite clearly insufficient grounds for homicide. For example, is a performing artist who gets pregnant by her own carelessness justified in getting an abortion because she or her managers believe it would ruin her career? Is a woman justified in getting an abortion because she doesn't want people to find out that she had sex with someone? That's not what "justifiable" means. Nor should the father be able to pressure the woman into getting an abortion just because he doesn't want to take care of a child that's partly his responsibility,
as we previously discussed. Also, I have anticipated some other reasons that will likely be offered, but I prefer to wait for people to bring these up. Some of these could turn into very interesting sub-debates.
However, these reasons are frequently offered as reasons for abortion in general, even though these should only apply to specific cases. It seems a lot of people have a tendency to say things like, "What if the woman were raped?" and then to continue by arguing that abortion shouldn't be illegal. Under the current law, abortion on demand is legal, meaning people are defending abortion on demand even if they don't realize it. Organizations like Planned Parenthood repel any attempt to limit abortions to only certain cases, and this easily furthers media stereotypes that make it seem like an "all or nothing" issue when it isn't. I have seen an appreciable number of people on these Forums argue for abortions being legal before a certain time (often the third trimester), yet they do not seek laws making abortion illegal before that time.
Sometimes, they outright state that no one believes abortions should be performed after a certain point, even though it's not clear whether any law makes such limits. Since
partial birth abortion had to be banned in a 2003 Congressional act that was fought all the way to the Supreme Court, somebody supports late term abortions.
In conclusion, my argument here is not that absolutely
all abortions should be illegal. Since abortion is homicide, I argue that any given abortion needs to be justified independently, and many are not justified. The mother is not justified in killing a fetus just because she does not want it. My fundamental point in this debate is that abortion is basically legal under our current system when it should not be. One can say that a woman should have control of her own body, yet for a fetus to come into existence (except in cases of rape), she had to
give up some of that control over her body to some man (and killing the fetus is exercising control over a different body, too). It can only be made to appear as a matter of a woman's choice by rampant misinformation and fallacious reasoning. Instead, it is really about the rights of the fetus.
Rules:
Be sure to use terms carefully!
Terms are important, whether you're talking about carrying a fetus to
term, or
terminating a pregnancy. *Rimshot* Wordplay aside, you need to be careful to say what you mean. If you say that a fetus isn't alive, people won't understand you if you really mean a fetus doesn't have personhood. Also, some definitions of the word "baby" specifically indicate that the term applies only after the child is born, though others even specifically apply the term to a child in the womb. Finally, as I recommended above, you might want to be careful about using the term "human being"--no matter which side you're on.
Don't mistake
part of someone's argument for their
whole argument.
For example, the fact that a fetus is alive is significant, but it is not intended to be taken on its own! Taking this detail in isolation, some pro-choice debaters ridicule the pro-life view with words like, "You need to quit saying 'all life is sacred!'" Since the status of fetuses as life forms was not the whole argument, and since this puts some Buddhists' words in non-Buddhist mouths, it is an obvious
straw man. Also, we can debate whether or at what point a fetus can feel pain (though I probably won't since this sub-debate isn't integral to the issue of homicide), but if this is not someone's whole argument, don't treat it as their whole argument.
Don't describe pregnancy or delivery with terms of exaggerated horror.
I understand that carrying a baby is difficult and that delivery can be very painful for many women. I do not seek to downplay these facts. However, some describe these in terms that approach actual torture, almost as though someone is purposely inflicting pain on the woman. It is also wise to remember that some women actually
want to have children. It is not honest to describe pregnancy or delivery in terms that make them sound like things no woman would want to endure. Some also state that abortion can be
more painful than delivery, making the whole argument from painful childbirth self-refuting.
