A pregnant person should always have the right to abortion, regardless of circumstances.

Thanks to AtkinsonCameron for taking on this debate! This is my first debate on this website, so I apologize if I mess up in terms of format or anything like that. I appreciate your tone and I will also do my best to remain civil and polite, although it is an issue that takes into account my own personal morality, as well. Thanks! C1 R2: With regards to your C1, C2 & C3, I have no argument against the idea that the fertilized egg/fetus should be considered "human life". There is overwhelming scientific evidence, in my opinion, that a fertilized egg (and later a fetus) meet the requirements for both "organic life" and a "human being" (in the genetic sense). C1a R2: Personhood However, while the egg/fetus are both humans, I would not classify either one as a true "person." The distinction here is that while an egg/fetus has the same DNA as a child or adult (like you or I), they do not have the intellectual abilities that a person has. The ability of an egg/fetus to experience and interact with its environment is nowhere near that of a child, or even an infant. As time goes on, the distinction becomes less clear, so the argument that a fetus is not a person is less persuasive as the gestational age of the fetus increases. It is much less easy to draw a distinction between the fetus and a child when a fetus becomes sustainable outside the womb. That said, (in the U.S.) the CDC has found that late term abortion make up about only 1% of abortions (CDC, 2008). I would also note that in the circumstances of late-term abortions, it is rarely a choice by the pregnant person to have such a late abortion. The most commonly cited reason for taking longer to get an abortion was inability to make arrangements quickly (59%) and this reason was cited about twice as frequently by poor women (Guttmacher, 2006). My point here is that the closer the fetus comes to being a "person," the less likely a pregnant person is to abort, and if they are, it is often due to circumstances that are (at least in some way) beyond their control. Why is the distinction between "human" and "person" so important in this context? It is based on personhood, by which we assign creatures the right to life (protected by law). There are no laws in most societies to protect non-human animals from violence. Many societies do have laws against animal cruelty, but even killing an animal for sport is not considered to be legally comparable to murder or even manslaughter (unintentional killing). The likelihood of an animal' life being legally protected by society generally increases with how close they come to personhood. Cats and dogs, who are common companions to people and (though cognitively very different from humans) share some forms of communication with humans are more likely to be protected under animal abuse laws. This is because we have a better understanding of these animals in the sense that we recognize that they have thoughts and feelings and are able to interact with their environments on a more cognitive level than, say, a fish or a slug. C1b R2: Choice Without the cognitive abilities of a person, a fetus/fertilized egg cannot make choices and it is impossible to know what the fetus' choice would be, if it were capable of making one. The fetus may grow into an adult (such as myself) who argues staunchly for reproductive justice and agree that the pregnant person carrying it should have the right to choose abortion. Or it might not. We have no way of knowing. The pregnant person, however, has a much higher ability to interact with its environment and the ability to make choices and consent (or not consent) to an abortion. Not every pregnant person wants an abortion. The person has to make a choice, based on their environment. If we want to value the autonomy of an individual, we must support the choice of a person who is demonstrating having an opinion on the circumstances before the inability to choose of a creature who has no ability to make a choice. C2 R2: Autonomy However, even if we assume that all fertilized eggs/fetuses have personhood equal to that of a birthed child and they would all choose to force their biological parent to carry the pregnancy to birth (which I do not believe is a solid assumption, based on the reasons given in C1) I still do not believe this is sufficient justification for denying a person the right to an abortion. Given this faulty premise, we would assume the pseudo-child has autonomy only equal to (not greater than) the pregnant person's. If we assume they are both cognitively functioning humans, and that all human life has equal right to life, and that were the fetus able to make the choice they would be anti-choice, then that is still a 1 vs. 1 debate. I do not believe that a pregnant person should have the inalienable right to end the fetus' life simply for the purposes of ending life. I do not believe a pregnant person should have the right to enter a hospital a take eggs stored for in vitro fertlization (IVF) and smash them on the ground simply because they do not agree with the idea of human pregnancy. However, a pregnant person (like any other person, save for criminal's on death row) does have the inalienable right to bodily autonomy. This includes the right to choose what they will allow (or disallow) within their own body. If a pregnant person desires the removal of an object (in this case: the egg/fetus) from their uterus, they have the right to remove that object. If it is necessary, due to the lack of technology or access to technology, that the egg/fetus dies in this process that is regrettable. Most people do not desire to end the life of a fetus. Usually, if a person has the choice between having an abortion and not getting pregnant to begin with, they will choose to not get pregnant. To be clear, though, as regrettable as the loss of life of the abortum is, we cannot allow the grief associated with that event to justify taking away the autonomy of a person. "Two wrongs don't make a right." I do not deny that human life is sacred, but I would argue that human autonomy is equally sacred, when it comes to the right to make choices about your body. If we decide that there are some circumstances where people are no longer allowed to choose to remove an invasive, foreign being from their own body, then I believe we lose our solid foundation for morality at all. C3 R2: Inevitability My final point that I would like to make is about the inevitability of abortion, miscarriage and loss of human life. Even if you disagree with my C1 and C2, I think this point is still persuasive. Let's say that you disagree with C2 because you don't think deciding a moral system should be in the hands of humans themselves, but it should be derived from a higher power beyond our control. I personally do not agree with this idea, but I don't think it is unfathomable. If there is some force of nature or a "higher power" that rules that abortion is morally unacceptable, then what should we do about the unintentional abortions (a.k.a. miscarriages) that, as humans, we do not yet have control over? Unless you argue that miscarriages are an intentional means of causing suffering by gods, God or nature, and that we should hold pregnant people legally responsible for miscarriage, it must be accepted that abortions (whether intentional on the part of the carrier or not), while tragic, are a natural part of life. When an abortion happens, whether intentional or not, there is no denying the sadness and grief that accompanies the loss of human life and potential personhood. I would never tell a grieving person who miscarried that they should just "get over it" because it was never really a child anyway. Abortions are never the ideal solution. I would much rather that abortions were prevented by providing the necessary medical care, resources and education. However, in our grief for the loss of a potential child, we must not allow ourselves to sacrifice the autonomy of a person who already exists. Conclusion: Abortion is a tragedy, but that does not justify retracting an individual's autonomy. A fertilized egg does not have personhood, therefore it does not have a person's autonomy. Even if a fetus nears personhood, it is still inhabiting the body of another person, who has the right to expel it if they desire. Rather than preventing (sometimes inevitable) abortions by taking away the autonomy of existing persons, we should focus on providing people what they need to avoid unintentional pregnancy to begin with. Works Cited: http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.guttmacher.org...