Abortion

As he will have to answer my questions and give a rebuttal in the next round, I'll try and limit the number of questions I ask him so he'll have adequate room to respond to my opening argument and answers to my questions.1a. That is what I'm saying.1b. By Google's definition, the universe is also an entity, as are animals. The pro-life position is that we are the same substance as we were in the womb, and a substance is something that maintains its identity through change. I have changed quite a bit since I was an embryo, or even an infant, but through all these changes I remained the same entity. I think we can see that fetuses have a personality, at least at a very rudimentary level, if you define personality as "the visible aspect of one's character as it impresses others. " [1] Fetuses can certainly be observed performing some tasks, such as sucking their thumb and rolling over when they're trying to sleep (they can even enter REM sleep, so it's likely they dream, as well). So at least in a visible sense, it can be shown that at least fetuses (from about the fifth month of gestation on) have a rudimentary personality. However, it's not the present capacity to have a personality or be rational that makes us valuable. It's the inherent capacity to fulfill these functions, in which the unborn qualify because they have the same inherent nature that makes all of us valuable. People who are asleep, in reversible comas, or under anesthesia for surgery also do not have the immediately exercisable capacity for a personality or rationality, so if this were what makes us valuable it would be morally permissible to kill someone for any reason you please while in these reversible states. Personhood would be "episodic," which means you would lose your personhood every night you fall asleep, and every time you would enter these other reversible states. Finally, I did not rely on myself to survive while in the womb, but neither did I rely on myself to survive as a newborn. I relied on my mother's breastfeeding me and giving me formula. I didn't rely on myself as a toddler, because while I was working on becoming more indepdent, I was still reliant on my parents to keep a roof over my head, clothes on my body, and food and water to keep me alive.1c. I am the same entity I was in the womb because I was the same entity (or substance) through all these changes. As I showed in the first round, the unborn are living human organisms from fertilization. At no point did I suddenly go from "non-life" to "life" or from "non-human" to "human. " Human life is a continuum, so even before I became self-aware (which doesn't even happen until sometime after you're born), I was still "me. "2a. Ultimate, rights derive from God. Morality is objective, meaning independent of the human mind. Morality is not left up to humans. When we say an act, like rape, is objective wrong, we don't simply mean we don't like rape. We are making a statement about the act itself. Rape is objectively wrong, regardless if someone believes their right to personal gratification outweighs another's right not to be sexually assaulted. By contrast, morality is not relative. It is not left up to the individual, otherwise we'd have no right to call another person's actions wrong. Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler would be no morally different from each other. In fact, they'd be morally the same because they were both acting based on their moral code. But Hitler was definitely wrong for killing all those Jews, and the only way we can consider him as being wrong is if morality is objective. Morality is also not left up to society, otherwise morality would be constantly changing. Abortion is illegal in Ireland. That would mean abortion is immoral in Ireland, but moral in the United States. Plus, abortion used to be illegal in the United States, as did slavery. That means that abortion and slavery used to be moral. What's more, slavery abolitionists were not heroes, as they were leading a charge for immorality by trying to change what the state has decreed is moral. Even more confusing, some states were free and some were slave states. Let's say you had one foot on one side of the Mason Dixon Line, and one foot on the other side. Were you a slave or free? Was slavery moral or immoral for you?2b. The fetus has a right to life, as we all have. This is a natural right, one that we have based on our common human nature. This is not to be confused with a legal right, which is granted by the state and usually comes through ability or maturity, such as the right to drive or vote.2c. The Fourteenth Amendment protects it. Before Roe v. Wade, the unborn were persons legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. [2] The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. Without it, we can't enjoy any other rights. It's pointless to have freedom of speech if we're not alive to speak in the first place.3a. Yes, as we all do, to a certain extent. She does not have the right to punch someone without just cause, nor does she have the right to take some drugs or drive without wearing her seatbelt.3b. Yes, a woman has a right to reproduce. But once she is pregnant, she has already reproduced.3c. The fetus is not a part of a woman's body, unless you're willing to accept that a pregnant woman has four arms, four legs, two heads, and roughly half the time, a penis and two testicles. The unborn has a different genetic code, and often a different blood type than the mother. Plus, a white baby can be created through IVF, be implanted into a black woman, and would still be born white. The unborn is not a part of her body. She does not have the right to revoke its presence because in the vast majority of cases, she is responsible for creating a naturally needy child. She bears a responsibility for caring for that naturally needy child.4a. The fetus is a human being.4b. The fetus can live without the mother once it reaches viability (at about 24 weeks' gestation).4c. No. See my response at 1b. Questions for Pro1. Do you believe abortions should have any restrictions at all? Why or why not?2. If abortions should have some restrictions, do you see a problem with restricting them? For example, if a woman has a right to her own body, wouldn't that be true all the way up until birth?3. You seem to think viability has some bearing on our being considered human beings. Could you please explain why?4. Scott Peterson was convicted of two murders for killing his wife and unborn child. Was it okay for Laci (his wife) to kill her child if she wanted to, but not okay for Scott to?5. Thalidomide was a drug in the 1950's and 60's prescribed to ease morning sickness in pregnant woman. However, it was later discovered that this drug caused severe fetal defects (resulting in children born without arms and legs). It is illegal for pregnant women to take. Let's say she acquires Thalidomide illegally and takes it, resulting in her child being born with no arms. Do you believe that she did anything wrong? Would you excuse her actions based on her right to bodily autonomy? That does it for me. I look forward to Pro's answers and his rebuttal. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...;[2] Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p.22.