Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice: Apolyton Debate #2

[November Adam]

D_dudy was gracious enough to let me post next, which I will be doing this evening.

[November Adam]

Well, here is my installement to this proceeding debate.

I wil now begin by rebuteing devilmunchkins statements.

But this isn't any old choice we're dealing with here. Just because a person (i.e. a woman) is pro-choice does not mean that they will choose to abort their own pregnancy but believe that every woman should have the right to decide what to do with her body, her life, and the fetus' existence. Pro-life not only disagrees with abortion, they are, in effect, taking away choice in order to dominate and hold their beliefs over others. Look around Washington and all the lobbyists. Pro-choice represents a broader base of options: as pro-life is one choice (to have), pro-choice opens up : to have or not to have

The stance that pro-life takes is one that states that the fetus is alive, and a human being.
Alive- a life form showing celluar growth and development.

Human- to belong to the homo sapien species.
As layed forth in our opening statement. I just wanted to clarify this as this means that one of the choices of the pro-choice side (abortion), is moot as it means the termination of that life.

I argue that until the fetus can support itself on it's own outside the mother's body that it is NOT alive. Virus' are not considered alive, unlike their Bacterian counterparts, because they cannot live outside or without the host. TO survive and multiply and thrive, virus' need a host period. The same goes for cancer which is a bundle of cells but in fact is not considered living. It's considered a disease that's part of a human organism that is alive. There are no distinctions between that as a fetus until it can thrive without need of being constantly attached to it's mother, or host. It feeds off of her in almost a parasitic fashion so that she must intake extra nutrients to support it. It too in a bundle of cells, perhaps no different than a cancer, which is what the mothers immune system often treats it like: it is foreign to her body and feeds off of her. It cannot survive without constant connection to her and therefore, it cannot receive rights of any kind because it is irrelevant.

It would appear that in this statement you are saying that there is no difference between a virus, cancer growth, and a fetus. Yet a virus does not develop into an infant, nor does cancer. You also go on to say that due to the nature of the fetus’ dependence it cannot receive any rights, but you also say that her body treats it as a foreign entity. Which appears to be a contradiction, but I understand what you are saying. What I don’t understand is how you go from saying that due to the fetus’ dependence it has no rights.
I would argue that the fetus is a stage of human development. This is something that I’m sure everyone read in the other thread but I am still going to state it here. The fetus is one part of our life cycle, the part in which we are dependent on our mother to supply us with the required sustenance to develop to the stage in which we can be independent. Some people may be wondering why I personify this stage, I do this to illustrate the fact that baring any natural problems, the fetus WILL devlope into an infant. There is no “potential” to this but a natural FACT.
We as humans have evolved to this method of reproduction, we do not lay eggs, we are not a-sexual, we do not have gestation periods of one month. We have a longer gestation period to develop into the complex organisms that we are. Why have we determined that the beginning period of our development is not to be protected?

Also, at the same time, this child could grow up in an abusive family because it is resented and not wanted. At the same time, abortion has been practiced among other cultures even prior to civilization and the settling of man into agricultural villages. The tribe had to be kept small in order to travel and hunt efficiently. Later, the practice of "pro-life" was adopted in order to spread population or religious belief. In today's present society, our earth is reaching the limit of how much population it can hold sufficiently. China even designates how many children a family can have (if any at all) and all non-approved pregnancies must be terminated. Point being, we need to value the lives on the earth that already exist and enable them to have rights before you assign rights to a non-living entity. Our-man argues that the fetus could invent things, well, so could humans that live on the streets or in third world countries that have not been educated or taught things. what about there rights?

It is interesting how in this you point out the history of abortion, as if this shows that it should be acceptable. Lets not forget that human history also shows that we have practiced human sacrifice, cannabalism, and other attributes we now find attorcious. If you want to point at todays society, which for me means “western society” we are going to have a large problem with the fact that we don’t have many kids running around, not the other way around. (How is a small population of workers going to support a large number of retirees?)
I won’t disagree that we need to treat living people better, but that is not an argument against the rights of a fetus, but more an argument to be used in an economics debate.

To argue that human's have a soul and that animals don't, cannot be proven. If both are life, then why does one form have soul and not the other? Here you move in the realm of religion in which there ARE no answers for nor any proof. In that case, one must argue that they decide morals for themselves, for the individual. If the individual decides what is morally and ethically right for themselves (because if there is a god, YOU DON"T decide for yourself. You don't choose. HE chooses for you.) then another human being does not, by your definition of rights, have the authority to tell that person their morals/ethics are incorrect or impose their own systems. If both animals, plants, bacteria, and fungi are life and loosing billions of their individual species everyday, the fetus should fall into that same category. As far as instinct, I beg to differ. Humans may FIGHT their animal instinct, but they do have it. Ever acted on a hunch? Much of what is being written is written on a whim, on an instinct. Much of what has been discovered has been that. That is how man came to be and came to settle. Trial, error, and instinct. Our roots are there and by saying we have no animalian instinct is to say humanity is perfect, never indecisive, raised to god-like levels, an mechanical in emotion. Obviously this is not so. Love at first sight is instinct..everything about love and feelings are instinct

You are right to a degree about imposing beliefs.. but don’t forget that someone who commits a crime feels that laws are an imposition on their beliefs.
I’m not quite following your statement “. If both animals, plants, bacteria, and fungi are life and loosing billions of their individual species everyday, the fetus should fall into that same category”.

*** Yin can I ask for a clarification on this from devilmunchkin, at which point I can post about it?****
I am going to leave the instinct point to the original point maker.

For the time that it is her womb, the fetus is attached to the mother through an umbilical cord and trading fluids with her, thus becoming a part of her body, as any cancer would be. To make conjectures about what will happen to the fetus is unfair. To say that it has rights is unfair when it is not alive nor can you project what MIGHT occur. This is science and such loose ended conjectures could go drastically wrong. Rather than invent some cure, that child could also be a mass murderer or the next Hitler. But at the times you are making this conjecture, the fetus is feeding off the mother as a temporary condition yet affecting her life forever. A fetus is a part of a woman's body and if pro-choice argues that it is more, they must argue that other inferior life forms like bacteria, plants, animals etc are equal to that fetus and humans. Obviously this is not the case and none of that can be taken into consideration since saying anything has a soul is mere unproven theology and not applicable in the field of science.

You are right one can not argue what the fetus may become after it is born, but then again one can argue the same thing for an infant or child. (so don't use this as an argument FOR abortion either)
The fetus is not the one changing the mothers life, the mother and father of the fetus is the one that changed their life. The fetus is the natural reason for sex. We humans (along with dolphins if recall correctly), are the only species to have sex recreationaly, so as such we have to be responsible if we do not want to end up pregnant. There are methods to prevent conception as we all are aware of, primary being absitance. But once conception occurs another life is involved. You can’t go back on that.
I do say the fetus is more but I don’t see how other inferior life forms are equal. Maybe equal in terms that they to are living organisms and deserve respect. But a fetus is part of the homo sapien species, and I find that to be more important.
So that is my contribution to this part of the debate, with more to follow.
So if allowed I ask for devilmunchkins clarification on the highlighted point, and if not I now respectfully turn the floor over to the Pro-Choice team.

[Ramo]

The stance that pro-life takes is one that states that the fetus is alive, and a human being.
Alive- a life form showing celluar growth and development.

The stance that pro-choice takes is that whether something is alive is not relevant to legal protection. After all, a tree is alive, but most people wouldn't give loggers murder sentences. A deer is alive, but most people wouldn't give hunters murder sentences. Arguably, the bacillus Yersinia Pestis is alive, but most people wouldn't give doctors and pharmacists murder sentences.

Also, some would attribute more qualifiers to your definition, of life, but for the reasons stated above, it's inconsequential to the debate.

Human- to belong to the homo sapiens species.

I agree with your definition of human, but does not your sperm belong to the species homo sapiens sapiens? Would you make masturbation illegal?

It would appear that in this statement you are saying that there is no difference between a virus, cancer growth, and a fetus. Yet a virus does not develop into an infant, nor does cancer. You also go on to say that due to the nature of the fetus’ dependence it cannot receive any rights, but you also say that her body treats it as a foreign entity. Which appears to be a contradiction, but I understand what you are saying. What I don’t understand is how you go from saying that due to the fetuss’ dependence it has no rights.

The dependence implies that the mother's rights come before the fetus' rights. For example, at a time when the development of a fetus' brain and nervous system implies legislative protection, a mother should have the right to abort when her life is in danger.

I would argue that the fetus is a stage of human development. This is something that I’m sure everyone read in the other thread but I am still going to state it here. The fetus is one part of our life cycle, the part in which we are dependent on our mother to supply us with the required sustenance to develop to the stage in which we can be independent. Some people may be wondering why I personify this stage, I do this to illustrate the fact that baring any natural problems, the fetus WILL develop into an infant. There is no “potential” to this but a natural FACT.
We as humans have evolved to this method of reproduction, we do not lay eggs, we are not a-sexual, we do not have gestation periods of one month. We have a longer gestation period to develop into the complex organisms that we are. Why have we determined that the beginning period of our development is not to be protected?

No, a fetus may develop into an infant. That is, the fetus will develop into an infant if and only if it's able to get nutrients from it's mother, there are no genetic defects that cause mother nature to automatically abort it, etc. Just like how sperm may develop into an infant, dependent upon a certain set of assumptions. Therefore, the sperm and egg should be considered the "beginning period of our development." Based on the criteria of what it might be, abortion is no less of a murder than masturbation.

It is interesting how in this you point out the history of abortion, as if this shows that it should be acceptable. Lets not forget that human history also shows that we have practiced human sacrifice, cannabalism, and other attributes we now find attorcious.

No, dm pointed out the history of abortion to establish that the natural tendency against abortion is not universal. In fact, the opposite is arguably true; the need to create children forced civilized peoples to establish restrictions against abortion through institutions such as the church and the state. In pre-agricultural societies, one doesn't see taboos against abortion, unlike murder.

If you want to point at todays society, which for me means “western society” we are going to have a large problem with the fact that we don’t have many kids running around, not the other way around. (How is a small population of workers going to support a large number of retirees?)

What about today's society? Or Western society? I don't see how this relates to dm's point.

I’m not quite following your statement “. If both animals, plants, bacteria, and fungi are life and loosing billions of their individual species everyday, the fetus should fall into that same category”.

What don't you follow? dm is asking you why you think plants, bacteria, fungi, and other animals shouldn't receive legal protection, while a fetus should.

Note to yin: NA has already addressed this point at the bottom of his post, dealing with "inferior forms of life"

You are right one can not argue what the fetus may become after it is born, but then again one can argue the same thing for an infant or child. (so don't use this as an argument FOR abortion either)
The fetus is not the one changing the mothers life, the mother and father of the fetus is the one that changed their life. The fetus is the natural reason for sex. We humans (along with dolphins if recall correctly), are the only species to have sex recreationaly, so as such we have to be responsible if we do not want to end up pregnant. There are methods to prevent conception as we all are aware of, primary being absitance. But once conception occurs another life is involved. You can’t go back on that.

Why not before conception? It can be arguably said that the sperm is a form of human life. What is this magical thing that happens at conception from which "you can't go back?"

I do say the fetus is more but I don't see how other inferior life forms are equal. Maybe equal in terms that they to are living organisms and deserve respect.

"Inferior" on what basis?

But a fetus is part of the homo sapien species, and I find that to be more important.

What's so special about homo sapiens sapiens? A point I shall now address...

______________________________________

November Adam states that other organisms do not deserve legal protection because they are "inferior" to homo sapiens sapiens. But the question arises, inferior on what basis? I think we all agree that this state of being "inferior" arises from the lack of complexity of these organisms' brain and nervous systems, relative to homo sapiens sapiens. But an early-stage fetus does lack complexity in these respects. A fetus at conception certainly is no more complex than a full grown chimpanzee or a full-grown chicken or a full-grown ant, or a full-grown mushroom. If legal protection should start at conception, it follows that eating a pizza should be mass-murder due to the sheer amount of bacteria we're killing.

[yin26]

Thank you both. I am quite enjoying this debate!

D_dudy: You're up!

[d_dudy]

Originally posted by Ramo


The stance that pro-choice takes is that whether something is alive is not relevant to legal protection. After all, a tree is alive, but most people wouldn't give loggers murder sentences. A deer is alive, but most people wouldn't give hunters murder sentences. Arguably, the bacillus Yersinia Pestis is alive, but most people wouldn't give doctors and pharmacists murder sentences.

deer and trees are not intelligent and will not become intelligent at any point in their existence. that is why we can kill them. they are inferior (as a fetus, a baby, or a young child is) but will never become equals to us. if a tree or deer was able to form deep thoughts and carry out intelligent conversation, i would want loggers and hunters arrested. we can't just kill something intelligent or, has the ability to be, because it's usefull. that would be barbaric don't you think?

I agree with your definition of human, but does not your sperm belong to the species homo sapiens sapiens? Would you make masturbation illegal?

no, your sperm does not belong to the human species. humans belong to the human species. sperm are just one kind of cell in our body that die and are replaced the same as skin cells are. a sperm by itself is not an intelligent human and cannot become one. when the sperm joins the egg a human is formed however. it is a growing human (as i, and most people under 18 are) that is not capable of any intelligent thoughts or comminication. the only differance between it and a new born baby is physical. and yet, infantacide is a henous crime. what is the differance between abortion and infantacide? what is the differance between abortion and killing a pestering 5 year old? the five year old may be able to function more and communicate but are the 5 year olds thoughts deeper than the baby's or the fetus'?

The dependence implies that the mother's rights come before the fetus' rights. For example, at a time when the development of a fetus' brain and nervous system implies legislative protection, a mother should have the right to abort when her life is in danger.

their rights are equal, because they are both human. if the baby has to aborted because the mother wants to live then that is unfortunate but it is no differant than self defense. this does not apply to poor mothers who do not want their children because they could give theur child up for adoption or seek help from family.

No, a fetus may develop into an infant. That is, the fetus will develop into an infant if and only if it's able to get nutrients from it's mother, there are no genetic defects that cause mother nature to automatically abort it, etc. Just like how sperm may develop into an infant, dependent upon a certain set of assumptions. Therefore, the sperm and egg should be considered the "beginning period of our development." Based on the criteria of what it might be, abortion is no less of a murder than masturbation.

did you not pay attention in health class? a sperm is a sperm and an egg is and egg. but together they are the beggining of a human. masterbation is not murder any more than allowing your skin cells to die and shed off is.

What don't you follow? dm is asking you why you think plants, bacteria, fungi, and other animals shouldn't receive legal protection, while a fetus should.

again, they shouldn't recieve protection because they are not intelligent and never will be

Why not before conception? It can be arguably said that the sperm is a form of human life. What is this magical thing that happens at conception from which "you can't go back?"

that "magical thing" is the creation of a human! that is why you can't go back!

"Inferior" on what basis?



What's so special about homo sapiens sapiens? A point I shall now address...

______________________________________

November Adam states that other organisms do not deserve legal protection because they are "inferior" to homo sapiens sapiens. But the question arises, inferior on what basis? I think we all agree that this state of being "inferior" arises from the lack of complexity of these organisms' brain and nervous systems, relative to homo sapiens sapiens. But an early-stage fetus does lack complexity in these respects. A fetus at conception certainly is no more complex than a full grown chimpanzee or a full-grown chicken or a full-grown ant, or a full-grown mushroom. If legal protection should start at conception, it follows that eating a pizza should be mass-murder due to the sheer amount of bacteria we're killing.

an early-stage fetus may be less complex than those organisms and it is just as intelligent. as is a new born, or a young child. but you wouldn't pick up a gun and shoot a new born or a young child because you don't want them around, would you?

once again, those life forms are inferior not because they are less intelligent, as a baby or a child, or a fetus. but, because they never will be



if my spelling is poor (and i'm sure it is) i apologize. my computer was acting up and i didn't want to try and spell check.

[Ramo]

*Bump*

[DinoDoc]

I'll second that bump.

[November Adam]

bump

[bondetamp]

I'm sorry about the lateness of this reply. I hope it meets your expectations.

Originally posted by d_dudy
deer and trees are not intelligent and will not become intelligent at any point in their existence. that is why we can kill them. they are inferior (as a fetus, a baby, or a young child is) but will never become equals to us. [SNIP] once again, those life forms are inferior not because they are less intelligent, as a baby or a child, or a fetus. but, because they never will be

My brain screams “Ad-hoc! Ad-hoc!” to me, but I think this is mostly because I find the point that I put in bold to be irrelevant. I’ll come back to it later.

no, your sperm does not belong to the human species. humans belong to the human species. sperm are just one kind of cell in our body that die and are replaced the same as skin cells are.

The same could be said of a fertilized egg at conception. Just another
kind of cell in our body. You're backtracking on your definition of the
property of something being human, namely that it belongs to homo sapiens
sapiens. Human sperm, by its very definition, most definitely belongs to
the species homo sapiens sapiens, just like a human foetus does.

a sperm by itself is not an intelligent human and cannot become one.

Sure it can, based on a few assumptions. The foetus also can become a
newborn only if a certain set of assumptions are met. Like I pointed out
earlier, the foetus requires nutrients from its mother to become a baby,
just as a sperm requires an egg.

when the sperm joins the egg a human is formed however. it is a growing human (as i, and most people under 18 are) that is not capable of any intelligent thoughts or comminication. the only differance between it and a new born baby is physical. and yet, infantacide is a henous crime. what is the differance between abortion and infantacide?

Like you wrote earlier, there is a substantial physical difference. As I
wrote earlier, notably in the brain and nervous system.

what is the differance between abortion and killing a pestering 5 year old? the five year old may be able to function more and communicate but are the 5 year olds thoughts deeper than the baby's or the fetus'?

Deep thoughts? What do you think this is, SNL? What are "deep thoughts"?

One thing we need to keep in mind here is that ”human life” and “potential human life” is not the same.

I’m all for the notion that human life is sacred. The problem I have is when someone, November Adams in this case, makes a definition of human life that encompasses that small mass of organic material that is the foetus. I really get irritated when the reason for this wide definition is that the foetus will one day become a baby.

NA uses the definition of human life as something that is experiencing cellular growth and belongs to the Homo Sapiens species. When meeting the argument that a tumour in that case is as much human life as a foetus, he (I’m using he here, but I honestly don’t know NA’s sex. He could be a woman for all I know.) backtracks with the tired old “it will one day grow into a baby” argument, which brings me back to the opening of this post, instead of coming up with a better definition.

I don’t care about the blob of cells that is the foetus. The fact a foetus will one day become a human being is uninteresting. If it is a human being, then one could say that abortion undesirable, but one would also have to find arguments to why a lump of cells has more in common with a baby than, say, a tumour. And one would have to argue based on what that lump of cells is and not what it might one day be. If, on the other hand, it is a potential human being, then a termination is morally neutral. It is not possible to do ethically wrong actions against something that doesn’t exist and something that potentially exists still doesn’t exist.

So, if human life is to encompass the foetus, I’ll have to rework my definition as to whose life I find sacred. It is but a small job with semantics and it pays to be clear.

But, really, this is just one side of the question, the side saying that it is absurd to call all abortions evil. It is not necessarily relevant, as even if all abortions were indeed evil, there is still reasons to allow it.

Can anyone tell me why there isn’t a law that makes people donate blood or spinal fluids? Can anyone tell me why there isn’t a law that makes me donate one of my kidneys? Even after I die, and I could have no further use of my organs, it is illegal to harvest my body for organs that could save another human being. Even if I ran down another person with my car, and this person would die without my blood, I would not be legally required to give it. I would be tried for murder, but not because I didn’t give blood. It is about the integrity of the human body. It is the idea that you are a master of your own body and that no one has any right to breach that integrity. It is one of the most fundamental rights that we have.

Can someone then tell me why, in our still quite male-dominated society, that the only case where the integrity of a person’s body ceases to be the right of that individual is also one of the few things that can only happen to women?

I’m not opposed to the notion of donating organs or giving blood or whathaveyou, but I find a law requiring people to do so to be very much against the notion of freedom and liberty, even if it would save the lives of thousands. My body is mine and mine alone and the community has no right to decide what should be done with it.

All I want is for women to have that same right.

[bondetamp]

^

[DinoDoc]

Bump

[November Adam]

I now have the privilege to present the closing statements and rebuttals for the Pro-Life team.

The main point our team is trying to make is that despite the fact that the fetus does not have a brain (it actually starts to develop a spine and brain lobes as early as 3 weeks) the fetus is still an individual. While still having to be attached to the mother via an umbilical cord the fetus is a human in the beginning stages of development. Whether by design or evolution we have a gestation period of 9 months, due to our complex biological nature. This gestation is necessary, as inconvenient as it may seem. What is my point with this statement? The point is that it is no different then any of our other phases in life, and thus shouldn’t be ignored, nor have its importance reduced.

The argument that the embryo, and fetus are no different then the sperm, egg, a tumor, or an organ is incorrect for one very important reason. None of these things are developing humans. The insistence that a sperm is no different than an embryo, and thus masturbation is murder is ridiculing the status of the embryo. Due to the fact as stated before a sperm in it’s natural state will no develop any further.

There have been arguments that the fetus is only a “potential” human, and thus not befitting of human rights, or that the fetus should not have more rights then the woman carrying it. This is a poor blanket statement without any follow up in its defense. What rights would the fetus have more so then the woman? All we are arguing is that the life of the fetus not be terminated, how is that more than the woman’s rights? We are not arguing that the woman should be terminated.

Regarding the “potential” comment, this word is being used by my esteemed opponents to imply that the fetus MAY only become human. They are saying that any number of events could prevent this from occurring, which is true of course. Miscarriages occur far to often to be comfortable, and these are tragic incidences. I believe that the pro-choicers are saying that due to this fact it should be all right to terminate the pregnancy using outside forces (abortion). Yet they are neglecting to realize that tragic events occur all of the time in life. They are called accidents. Even though accidents occur in life, we can’t use outside forces to terminate life can we?

A fetus is a “potential” human in the way that an infant is a “potential” child, and a child is a “potential” adolescent… etc. So if this is how the pro-choice side is defining “potential”, then you can see that a fetus WILL develop into an infant, as an infant WILL develop into a child… etc.

The majority of the pro-choice side has to do with dealing with the woman, and her right to do with her body as she wishes, and ultimately she will do what she wants no matter how she has to go about it. I can’t argue against that stance, but more about the prevalent attitude that stems from this. It deals with more than just women, but with men as well. (This isn’t a new point as it is a point I did bring up but was never rebutted on). We are of the opinion that we can have sex without responsibility. Yet sex’s primary function is for reproduction. This seems to have been forgotten. The fact that sex is also pleasurable (who would want to procreate if it wasn’t) has led us to the point where we wish to have sex without the reproduction. Yet we have to be aware that a pregnancy can occur. We are aware of that yet we have now told ourselves that it doesn’t matter because the fetus isn’t human, it can’t feel anything, so it’s ok to get rid of it. Have we really become liberated of old school thought? Or have we had to numb ourselves to responsibility?

The argument that why should she have to live with their mistake? Now this question says to me that we haven’t totally numbed our senses to responsibility in that we still see this as a mistake. Can it be a mistake if the fetus isn’t human? Is this an acknowledgment that something is happening? Despite all of the talk of “potential” there is the realization that an infant is going to be born? Now back to the mistake matter. No matter how big a mistake is, you can’t end a life, even if it is very inconvenient. I am aware that this is going to be a life changing inconvenience. So instead of trying to erase this inconvenience we should be trying to support the woman and child.

The argument that this isn’t happening doesn’t excuse abortion, but should be a wake up call for those crusty old men, and women (politicians), that if they want to get rid of abortion they should be doing more to make it undesirable.

Thank you honorable judges, esteemed opposition, ladies and gentlemen for the opportunity to debate our team’s points.

[DinoDoc]

Where is the final closing statement?

Bump

I'd like to judge something.

[November Adam]

Hello? anyone there?

^

come on... I thought one of you choicers had a closing statement and were running it by your peers..

[SITS]

Sorry, took my eye off the ball. Will contact the rest of team and get something posted.....