Abortion

This has been a short, but pointed debate. I thank my opponent for the straight-forward debate. "I don't see why you make the distinction between natural and extra-natural. " The purpose of an object is of fundamental importance. It is a philosophical argument. Something is what it is and it has certain properties. Now while there is no direct comparison to pregnancy due to its uniqueness. As such I will provide an imperfect analogy. Let's say you have a chair. A chair has a purpose which is for someone to sit upon. Now, if you sit upon the chair and it breaks and you injure yourself you could sue the manufacuturer. Now, let's say you stand on the chair to chang a lightbulb and it breaks. In court, the chair manufacturer would ask how you were using the chair. As you were using it improperly they have a defense against your claim. A chair is not to stand on, but it is to sit on, that you choose to use it for a purpose that it is not intended for is not necessary for the manufacturer to support, however you can choose to use it in such a way. In the same way the mother's kidney is meant to be used to perform its function in its own body. If she chooses to use it in a different manner is her choice, but not an obligation on her. This is the differentiation between natural and extra-natural. Another of your arguments:This same parallel could be applied to abortion but much more so. Lets say a mother has seven children and is pregnant with an eighth there are circumstances where "toll will be too great on her resulting in much suffering for her and her other children. We have previously established that the fetus is a person (Right to life, right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, right to recognition before the law, right not to be discriminated against). Thus it should have the same rights as any other person. So lets say the mother had eight children. Would she be justified in killing one of the children to alleviate the financial difficulties on the other 7? Would she be justified in killing her widowed mother to get her inheritance to help take care of the children? Both of those would be classified as murder, yet you agree that the fetus has a right not to be discriminated against. "This is a distinction between passive and active and I will attempt to argue that this doesn't matter. Actively ending a life feels worse than passively ending one though they have the same outcome for the person in question, the difference between passively and actively ending a life is purely emotional. In this case the passive action of the mother not giving the child her kidney is action, her inaction is action. "If you saw a person at the edge of a cliff, you are arguing that you would have the same culpability under the following circumstance:1) You see someone slipping off the cliff, yet out of fear for your own safety you fail to intervene to save them;2) You pushed them off. In one case you killed the person, in the other the gravity accelerated his body to terminal (in more the one way) velocity. There is a distinct difference between intending to cause the death of another person and accepting that nature takes its course with all of us eventually. "The point I was attempting to make was that it is that there is a point where fetus and placenta are indistinguishable, while both are "human" if you want to go from a genetics standpoint both the fetus and the placenta are both human, in fact they are identical. Even earlier there is a point where the cells which will make up the placenta and the cells that will make up the fetus are indistinguishable. I am perfectly willing to accept most of the second part of your argument and I feel that the first part of mine is the important section and I don't see it as being fully refuted yet (though the voters will decide that). "Placenta: the vascular organ formed in the uterus during pregnancy, consisting of both maternal and embryonic tissues and providing oxygen and nutrients for the fetus and transfer of waste products from the fetal to the maternal blood circulation. [1]Embryo: An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form. [2]As you can see, the placenta and embryo are not the same. The placenta is an organ formed by the embryo. Yes they both have the same DNA, like every cell in the host body. In fact every cell in the body comes from a single cell - the zygote (a totipotent cell). The fact that future cells differentiate into the various parts of the child does not mean that the zygote is not an entire organism or that individual cells in an organism are equivalent to an individual organism. An organ is not the same as the organism. Concluding Argument I believe that I have completely nullified my opponents arguments:1) That the fetus has no more right to the mother's uterus than her 2 year old child does to the mother's kidney. I have shown that the nature and purpose of the kidney is for use in the mother. Whereas the nature and purpose of the uterus is for the good of the child. Not only that we can see that the woman's body prepares itself every month for this express purpose. Thus the Child has a natural right to the mother's womb, but does not to her kidney.2) Early abortion:There is no single criteria other than simply being a member of humanity that you can apply to a zygote that doesn't also apply to a newborn baby in terms of granting rights. My opponent took no exception to this and has not endorsed infanticide. Since he has already agreed that the fetus has rights he has implicitly agreed that personhood should logically be extended back to fertilization.3) Placenta argument:It has been clearly shown that the placenta is distinctly different and is not an organism in and of itself, but is an organ produced by the organism. Thus there is no reason that a placenta should have rights because it is not an organism, though may be visually indistinguishable at a certain stage of development. [1] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...I