Abortion

The abortion debate typically revolves around the following issues: 1. The personhood of a human fetus/embryo (sometimes only questioned during certain stages of prenatal development) 2. Bodily Autonomy for the mother in question 3. Consent of the mother in receiving responsibility for the wellbeing and safety of her unborn child But before we get into discussing these, let's discuss morality/ethics, such as what it is and where it comes from. There are two known possible sources of human morality: 1. Divine Source(s) 2. Natural Source(s) Allow me to explain what this means. First, there is the possibility of morality having a divine source, which of courld would necessitate the existence of divine elements. Typically in speculation, the divine source in question is a theistic entity, better known as "God" (or numerous gods according to many sets of religious beliefs). According to most religions, such a deity(s) created the Earth and all (or most) life on it, human beings included. All right, let's imagine that this is true, and God(s) created the Earth and all or most life on it, with humans being among the created. That is, God(s) designed and created human beings. According to most organized religions, God(s) created us for a purpose. That is, God(s) has a specific plan, purpose, and design for humans, on both a collective and individual level. This includes a moral code that humans would ideally, in accordance to the plan, purpose, and design for humanity established by God(s), follow and obey. There, there's the other possible source of human morality: a natural source(s). That is, either it's a part of human evolution or the ethical system imposed on humanity by societies throughout history, or a combination of both. If it's the former, it's because the traits which are a capacity for morality would benefit the species. If it's the latter, it's because some smart humans realized that such traits would benefit the human race (which is essentially the same reason as the former). Whichever one of these two natural sources of morality you choose, morality is those traits which benefit the human species as a whole or increase the quality of living or both. This is where the legal system comes from. Lawmakers realized that roads would be safer if there were a traffic code, so they made one and the law requires us all to abide by that code. This is also, obviously, where the rule "thou shalt not murder" comes from. Humanity would be much worse off (if not extinct) if people just went around killing people. These are the sources of human morality, which is that which benefits the species and/or increases the quality of life of human beings. The development of human morality has reached the point where it is considered right to protect the rights of all human beings, even the minority and/or those who are deemed to be of little or no value to society. Part 1. Fetal/Embryonic Personhood A fetus has often been called "a bunch of cells", a phrase which connotes a lack of personhood. At the minimal, all parties should agree with certain biological facts, such as: (1) A fetus has its own unique DNA, meaning that it is not merely an extra body part of the mother (2) A fetus has brain activity at least to some degree at least midway into pregnancy, proven in part by its ability to react to stimuli and to suck its thumb Indeed; only those at the fringe of the Left would deny that a fetus/embryo is a life form of some kind, regardless of whether or not it should be considered a person. Amoebae are single-celled organisms, and their lack of more than one cell does not in any way negate their status as life forms. I have stated this to clear up the misconception that a fetus is "not alive". Still, though, I have not yet proven that it is a person. But still, I've cleared up that it is a life form of some kind. We are making progress. First of all, how do we decide on who gets personhood? Well, we've deemed people in a vegetative state to be persons, evidenced by the fact that it would be considered murder to kill a vegetative person. So lack of mental capabilities does not always mean that a being lacks personhood. A person in a coma who is expected to recover completely within 9 months is still considered a person while in the coma. So a fetus that will become a "full-fledged" person should be considered a person by this logic. Fetuses/embryos possess human DNA and are made of human components so they are clearly human beings. Human beings are granted personhood by the law in almost all cases outside of the abortion debate, so it's reasonable to assume that if fetuses/embryos are human beings (albeit underdeveloped humans), they should be entitled to the same right to life that "complete" people possess. There is also the possibility of a fetus/embryo possessing a soul. Many religions have implied that fetuses are persons. In the case of Christianity, an early Christian work called the Didache forbids Christians from performing or having abortions, proving that at least one early Christian (most early Christians as well, most likely) believed abortion to be immoral, giving credibility to the claim that an anti-abortion stance is a stance associated with the correct practice of Christianity. Thus, if Christianity is true, abortion is wrong. Many sects of Buddhism also prohibit abortion, which shows that if Buddhism is true abortion is also likely wrong. This applies to many religions; if one of them is correct, abortion is immoral. Part 2: Bodily Autonomy of Mother Even among those who agree that abortion is murder, some believe that it should still be legal because to force pregnant women to go through with pregnancies that they didn't ask for is a violation of their bodily autonomy. However: First, if it's murder vs. a 9 month violation of bodily autonomy, it makes sense to choose the lesser evil/violation of rights. Second, the parent of a born child is required to provide for that child, even if it forces them to use their own resources (money). Pregnancy is a more extreme example of this, but why shouldn't the same principle apply? Third, autonomy is not an absolute right which may never be violated. For instance, prison is a violation of a person's autonomy. Fourth, the mother (and the father) did (in any case other than rape or coerced sex), in a sense, accept the responsibility for pregnancy. Consider it this way: other than artificial insemination, sex is the only way for a human being to become pregnant. In fact, reproduction is the overall purpose of sexual activity. The close to constant libido of humans is to encourage them to engage in sex acts which cause reproduction. Acts such as masturbation and having sex with a partner who is already impregnated (or perhaps you're pregnant yourself) are cathartic, seeing as humans don't always have access to a sexual partner and the libido doesn't turn off even if one's partner is impregnated. So, the overall purpose of sex is reproduction. That's why it is considered to be very pleasurable; because humans must do it to keep our species alive. If a person has received a reasonable education (as the vast majority of sexually capable people in the US have), that person would have knowledge of this. Thus, people are aware that sex comes with the risk of pregnancy; even birth control does not entirely eliminate the risk of pregnancy. Thus, in having consenting sex, a person does so with the knowledge that it may result in a pregnancy, which is the introduction of another life form (in the case of humans, one entitled to basic human rights) into this world. Thus, regardless of whether they believe this to be true or not, any person who has sex accepts the risk of pregnancy and as such consents to taking responsibility for any fetus/embryo that forms as a result. If a fetus is conceived, it is because the person in question had sex. Thus, the burden and duty of making sure that this fetus is born and lives should be on the shoulders of its parents. Otherwise, sex is the constant creation of beings with human rights followed by their merciless destruction. If they're born and if they are entitled to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which they are, as I have shown), then they are entitled to be taken care of by somebody until the reach the age when they are capable of taking care of themselves. This same right of personhood applies to human fetuses/embryos also, as I have shown. Thus, they are entitled to have SOMEBODY take care of them at all stages of personhood until they reach adulthood/capability of being independent. And who has a greater duty to them than those who did, consciously or subconsciously but with knowledge of the risks they were taking, introduce them into this world with the unspoken promise (if it's guaranteed to all human beings, then it is in a sense promised to conceived fetuses) that they will be taken care of, as is natural for all beings (and especially for human beings)? Thus, the responsibility of mothers (and fathers) and the right to life for all humans outweighs the mother's right to bodily autonomy. Until an alternative is developed to have the fetus (and later, baby) develop outside of the mother, the mother and father have a responsibility for that child. Adoption is the way for parents to not have to spend 18 years of their lives looking after that child, as somebody else (either the state or individuals) will carry that responsibility, as that somebody/something else agreed to this. But while in the womb, with currently available technology only the mother can carry a fetus/embryo to term. Bodily autonomy is overruled here by a greater right and responsibility. It is a harsh, perhaps cruel truth, but it is the truth regardless. The results of denying this truth are even more cruel. The above also covered the question of consent (just to clear that up). This concludes my (shortened) Round 2 case. Thank you.