Abortion

The dictionary definition of a human being cannot disprove the person-hood of a fetus because the definition of child creates a loop back to the definition of human being. It comes down if the mother should have a right to abort a fetus. I say yes because the mother does have the right to do so due to reasons. Whatever it maybe the mother has more right over the fetus due to reliance involved. Without the mother the fetus would not be surviving. Due to this the mother if wanting to abort the baby due to reasons is well within her right do so because the fetus has become a high enough problem to want the mother carry out an abortion. Also, The dictionary cannot be the only argument used because as you can see dictionaries can be flawed and therefore must be backed up by other arguments. The problem with this is that if we do not agree on definition then we would be talking past each other. It can be flawed which is why I choose the best definition I can find. You didn't however. Examples would be your definition of person and human being. I would require another definition to understand what it means instead I gave you a definition of human being which has attributes that did make it clear to what I meant. The reason a fetus is a person is because the zygote at conception is a new form of DNA and behaves in a manner outside of a normal human cell or brain tumor. It is still unborn and reliant on the mother which you are not addressing. Different molecular composition separates the body of the zygote from the body of the mother and different behavior from regular human cells adds as evidence that the zygote is a human organism or human being. I see this as filler or dodging the matter at hand. The fetus is reliant on the mother. If the mother cannot have the fetus in her body whatever reason it maybe she should be able to abort it. The mother has more value than a fetus due to how developed the mother is and potential of pregnancy later on during her life. You keep making the point that a fetus is not a person because it is dependent on the mother. I have already addressed that point in my arguments in round 2 (see dependency). It was a bad point but I will address it here again what you stated in Round 2. Dependency: The line of person-hood drawn at viability is a common one. However, This excludes coma patients, Iron lung patients, Certain diabetic patients, Pace-maker patients, Etc. Who are entirely dependent on machines. Moreover the line of viability is determined by where you go. A New York hospital can deliver a fetus much earlier than a hospital in Bangladesh, But environment does not determine human value. No where in here have you defined your words. You defined person to be a being who is part of our moral community. No where in the definition does it help me understand what you mean by that definition. I require the definition of moral community as well. Hopefully you give one in the following next. The reason why the coma patients, Iron lung patients etc are in a different category is because all of them are born. Meaning they are not reliant on their mother to survive. Yes they are reliant on a machine or a material of some sort but that is expense is cheaper than time. 6-9 months of a mother's live has more value than electrical energy. Due to the abundance of electrical energy and the limited time the woman has to do something with her life. After that point you decide to not address the fetus being reliant on the mother instead talk about places. Yes it is easier to deliver a baby in New York than Bangladesh but what if the mother does not want to spend 6-9 months of her life providing for it and putting her life on halt? You are basically saying since you are against abortion would say the life of the fetus over-rules the choice the mother has aborting it. Limiting to what a woman can do with her life by 6-9 months at the least and if she does decide to care of it would probably spend the majority of 14 years afterwards to take care the child. I am also using the philosophical definition of person because that is what I am referring to. Whatever a being who is a part of our moral community is, I call that a person. Would like a definition of moral community. In context of abortions I would say that all are wrong with the exception of the threatening of the mother's life with no other options. This means you are okay with children being born by rape. The problem with this is that you force a woman to spend 6-9 months of her time to growing and eventually give birth to a baby then since we have laws. The rapist would be put in jail leaving the mother to be a single mother. Not to mention if the mother had prior commitments that were over-ruled by something she could not prevent. Whether it be the rape itself or being pregnant for 6-9 months (If what you propose does become policy) then the mother would have to decide to be a single mother and take care of the child on her own or give it up for adoption. Both are bad options for the woman. One would be a stressful life trying to be both breadwinner and the career in the family or giving up the child which does psychologically scar the mother. Aborting the baby is not as damaging as letting it go while being in the process of being pregnant of 6-9 months then going into labour only for it to be given away. Both are options are bad if the person did not want to have a child. So basically instead of a better option for the woman abortion you would pick from the lesser of two evils. These have nothing to do with the value or rights of the fetus. The problem is that it does have an impact during the pregnancy stage. If it would be impossible to bring a baby in the world the value matters less than the environment the woman might be in. Values tend to matter less than surviving in a middle of a war. If you are using the definition of human being to determine person-hood, Then if I get on all fours I am no longer a person because I lack an upright stance. Clearly missing my definition. Here it is: superior mental development, Power of articulate speech, And upright stance. You still have an upright stance, Can articulate speech and superior mental development compared to other animals. You can get on all fours but it does not make you less of a human being. Await a response.