The Abortion Debate

Hello pro, Let's start off with making a distinction. I am using the scientific facts to prove that the zygote is a human being, Not a person. I am arguing that it is a person via arguments and reasoning. For your first argument "I am saying there is a major difference in being biologically alive than having person-hood" I agree, Even though plants and bacteria are biologically alive they are not persons. The question is, Are there any differences between a fetus and a baby that would determine one to be a person and the other to not? I argue no given my criteria for person-hood of humans. For your second argument "If you could only save one, Would you save a baby or a fetus? . . . . . . . . . So this moral and philosophical question has nothing to do with level of development but instead a level of personhood and what constitutes being a "human-being" in this sense. " In response to the first part, The outcome of a moral impulse is not a determinant of truth. For example if you could save one, Would you save 100 adults or your own child? In a split second decision, Most parents would choose their own child without a second thought. This moral impulse would choose the child, But that does not make it the most ethical decision nor does it conclude that a child is worth more than 100 adults. In response to the second part, I am glad that you agree with me that this question of person-hood has nothing to do with level of development. In referring to my previous rebuttal to your claim that zygotes are similar to bacteria and plants, If we both agree that neither appearances nor level of development determine person-hood (the two physical similarities between the two that I pointed out), Then we could conclude that zygotes cannot be compared to plants and bacteria in terms of person-hood even as examples and thus return under my criteria of person-hood for humans. Also, I am sorry if my wording is confusing, But human-being is not the same term as person. I am arguing that all human beings are persons, But they are not the same term. For your third argument "It's not so much about level of development but there is a threshold and a fetus does not have a functional central nervous system nor is capable of displaying brain activity until roughly the end of the second trimester. " So the argument being that since the fetus does not display brain activity or a central nervous system it is therefore not a person. This criterion of brain activity displays many problems. One, It would include a lot of beings that we would not regard as persons. For example owls, Guinea pigs, Cockroaches, Rats, Etc. Are all persons under this criterion because they all display brain activity. More importantly (I am going to apply fictional characters because they can be quite useful in philosophy) Wall-E, Vision from the Avengers, Groot from Guardians of a Galaxy, Bob from Monsters Vs. Aliens, Etc. Would all be counted out as persons even though they display all of the same characteristics of beings we would all regard as persons. For your fourth "A person in a coma while they are currently not displaying personhood, Has already had personhood. They legally and morally have rights at this point and these rights should be considered. For this same reason, We have rights even after we are deceased. If I am not an organ donor" Nobody can take my organs from me even though I am dead, Even if it will save someone"s life. " As I understand this, You would agree that the person in a coma has lost his or her person-hood, But since they had person-hood in the past they should still be considered and have rights. However this contradicts your next statement. "Also, If someone is in a coma for an extended period of time, A family member or spouse has every right to pull the plug because unfortunately despite the person technically being alive by breathing tube, They no longer possess the ability to make that decision for themselves. " You would conclude that the person no longer possesses the right to live and can be killed according to the will of his or her family members due to the loss of his or her person-hood. Furthermore, You would grant more rights to a corpse even though they display no brain activity or the potential in the future than a person in a coma or a fetus even though both have cognitive function (even if it is on a cellular level). I argue that since the person in a coma is the same person before the coma and after if they come out of it, They are still persons. This is why I argue that viability is not a determinant of person-hood. Under this example, The criterion doesn"t hold up. There are other examples of humans who are clearly persons, But under the criterion of viability would not be considered persons such as. People with insulin pumps People with artificial hearts People with supplemental oxygen They are not viable; they are completely dependent on these different machines to survive. They cannot survive on their own, Yet are unarguably persons. Onto your fifth "personhood (or alienhood? Lol) is a combination of a few factors not just sentience. The aliens are born individuals, Despite not feeling pain and pleasure, Are they self aware? Are they able to make decisions? Are they conscious? Are they viable and not reliant on another alien"s body for merely existing? " Under these criteria, Young children are not persons as well as fetuses. Children don't become self aware until at least 18 months and cannot make decisions and are still reliant on another person's body even if it is not for everything. I am glad that you agree with me that sentience is not a determinant of person-hood, But I argue that these factors also exclude beings that we would all regard as persons, Too. And lastly your sixth "I support a woman"s choice in the matter because what she does with her own body comes before a fetus for many reasons. Carrying a fetus is not just a simple feat. It changes her body, It"s hard on her mentally, It can be risky (the US for example has the highest maternal mortality rate in developed countries), It can be extremely expensive and there are some circumstances where it may be necessary. " If a fetus is a person (a claim that is still standing at this point), Then none of these would justify killing the fetus. A life comes before physical and mental challenges. The risk of death of the fetus is much higher than the death of the woman. Raising a child is much more expensive but even so killing the child is unethical. Lastly, Abortion is not necessary, Ever. Most life threatening pregnancies are solved by inducing labor usually in the third trimester. It takes almost 3 days to prepare the cervix for a surgical abortion, Any emergency involving pregnancy would result in the woman"s death before she could get an abortion. These reasons do not justify the killing of a person. If a fetus is a person then abortion is not justified under these reasons. If a fetus is not a person then it doesn't matter and these reasons hold water. My arguments hold that a fetus is a person and therefore abortion is not justified. I hope I have responded to the most important arguments, If not all of them. Back to you.