Debate Rounds (2)
Firstly life is not inherently valuable, we can see this in the wide availability of antibiotics, and animal experimentation. It is clear that only certain life forms are actually valuable to us. These include endangered species, and ones which have traits worthy of personhood (consciousness, emotional complexity).
Next the whole, "if you didn't want a baby, you shouldn't have had sex" applies to a great many other situations. For example "if you didn't want a fungal infection, you should have looked after your health". There will always be consequences to your actions, but that does not mean you lose your bodily rights especially for an organism which isn't even conscious.
Lastly, the Bible is not a valid source.
Now for my arguments:
Firstly we can all agree that the pregnant women is a person as she possesses emotional complexity, self-awareness, ect. Now lets take a look at the fetus:
From the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists:
"The fact that the cortex can receive and process sensory inputs from 24 weeks is only the beginning
of the story and does not necessarily mean that the fetus is aware of pain or knows that
it is in pain. It is only after birth, when the development, organisation and reorganisation of
the cortex occurs in relation to the action and reaction of the neonate and infant to a world
of meaning and symbols, that the cortex can be assumed to have mature features."
This source shows that the bare minimum of features needed for fetal awareness does not develop until around 24 weeks, which is after the vast majority of abortions occur. It is clear that the fetus simply does not have the traits necessary for even consciousness, meaning that it does not have the right to force the women to carry it.
Next our current laws do not force people to do things with their body that they don't want to. For example you can't force somebody to give blood, even if it is needed to save the life of somebody next door. We certainly wouldn't force someone to give up their bodily rights for a rodent or some other lower animal, so why should we force a women to give up their bodily rights for and organism that hasn't even developed a mature brain?
I believe in the bible. I understand that you do not. I know what the bible says about abortion, and you obviously don't. However, I will not challenge you on the sayings of the bible. I cannot tell you what to believe, nor will I. I will say the from what I have read, abortion is not okay.
Abortion is killing. Here is my proof.
The scientific viewpoint on the issue. Many people try to claim that the unborn is just a blob of tissue, nothing more than a tumor. But it is a scientific and medical fact, based on experimental evidence, that the fetus is a living, growing, thriving human being, directing his or her own development. The unborn baby is never part of the mother's body. By the end of the second week of pregnancy, there is a distinct embryo present. The fetus has a developing brain and a rudimentary heart. By the end of the third week of pregnancy, the fetus has the beginnings of vertebrae, developing eyes and ears, a closed circulatory system (separate from the mother's), a working heart, the beginnings of lungs, and budding limbs. By the end of the fourth week of pregnancy, the fetus has a developing nose, and a pancreas. By the end of the fifth week of pregnancy, the fetus has the beginnings of vertebrae, a bony jaw and clavicle, developing eyes, ears, and nose, a closed circulatory system, a working heart, lungs, limbs, hands, feet, and a pancreas. By the end of the sixth week of pregnancy, the fetus has a vertebral column, a bony jaw and clavicle, a primitive cranium, ribs, a developing nervous system, a closed circulatory system with a working heart, developing eyes, ears, and nose, lungs, limbs, hands, feet, a pancreas, a bladder, kidneys, a tongue, a larynx, a thyroid body, and germs of teeth. By the end of the seventh week of pregnancy, the fetus has a vertebral column, a bony jaw and clavicle, a primitive cranium, ribs, femur, tibia, palate, upper jaw, developing nervous system, a closed circulatory system with a working heart, developing eyes,ears, and nose, lungs, arms, legs, hands, feet, a pancreas, a bladder, kidneys, a tongue, a larynx, a thyroid body, germs of teeth, and the beginnings of muscles. By the end of the second month of pregnancy, the fetus has a vertebral column, a bony jaw, clavicle, and palate, a cranium, ribcage, femur, tibia, forearms that can be distinguished from arms, and thighs that can be distinguished from legs, a developing nervous system, sympathetic nerves (meaning the fetus can feel pain), a closed circulatory system and a working heart, eyes, developing ears and nose, lungs, arms and forearms, legs and thighs, hands and feet, a pancreas, a bladder, kidneys, a tongue, a larynx, a thyroid, germs of teeth, and developing muscles. --gray's anatomy
This article from the ehealth forum shows that they are living things. They have lives. They don't have consciousness, but they will soon enough. Your argument makes a good point, but there is lots of proof out there that shows that abortion is murder. I understand that it is their body, and that we can't make them do anything with their personal being, but that's not what this is about. This is about choosing for yourself. This is about your choices. This is about right and wrong. I'm just asking that mothers would make the right choice. That the mothers would choose life.
Next most of your argument revolves around the concept: They are alive, therefore it is wrong to kill them. This argument ignores the fact many living things including bacteria, fungi, and plants are living, however are not considered valuable at all. It is not considered wrong to take antibiotics or set up a few rat traps. Now why should it be considered wrong to abort a fetus that doesn't even have brain functions on par with a rat's.
That ehealthforum source you cited only proves one thing, that the fetus is a living, which I have shown means nothing, considering our treatment of other living organisms.
The last argument you bring up is the idea that it will become conscious at some point in time. For this it is important to remember that we treat things how they are, not based on what they will become. A presidential candidate is not the president until they are elected and a criminal is only a criminal until they are convicted. It is also important to remember that the potential for a baby exists the second a boy and girl enter the same room, yet they are not arrested for not having the sex which could conceive a baby. The potential may be there, but that is all it is, potential, and in no way trumps the bodily rights of a person.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.