As I've stated, multiquotes annoy me, so here are short summations of the particular debaters' arguments and how they clash with the topic's rules. Or a lengthy explanation why their argument is considered void, at least in this topic (as given by the topic starter).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
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.
(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.
- Abortion is homicide
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.
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.
@Iceberg and supporters:
No further statement about an unborn child in any early or late term may be made about it being human (it is), a parasite (it isn't), an extension of the mother like an arm (it isn't), or sentient (it is, or whether it is or not is irrelevant when seeing other non-sentient creatures having more rights). The mother not wanting the fetus/child/unborn baby/zygote isn't a justification for disposing of it. View my proposed three-strike system. It might be in your grey area, but it seems you still try to justify a woman being allowed to abort a baby because they don't want to go through labor anything.
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.
@ mattj: I suggest using a specialised term to use in your arguments so the pro-choicers don't rage over your terms. It will quicken the debate if you do.
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.
@ Iceberg: your arguments against forcing women to go through pregnancy seem quite exaggerated (that it's always excruciating). If you have a special condition that makes pregnancy painful or it is caused by rape (a case can be made for mental torture), that's another issue. But my own mother isn't exactly regretting having to go through four pregnancies and having four children. So hearing you say no woman wants to go through the pains of labor, makes me feel ashamed I gave the signal to be born (I read in a new study that, unless influenced by medical techniques, the baby itself gives off a chemical signal to begin being born).
Look at all these wonderful benefits of pregnancy. I think I'll go walk around the shady part of town tonight and hope that I get raped so that I can experience the joy of raising a child I didn't have any control over.