Abortion

a) It is acceptable for a person to remove a non-human non-sentient growth from their body (even if it entails the growth’s death) Agree b) A human non-sentient growth is ethically equivalent to a non-human non-sentient growth First off, a fetus is not a growth, see response to contention d. Secondly, sentience has nothing to do with a human life. Sentience, as it is not specific to humans is a faulty framework for this resolution. You did not provide your definition for sentience so I shall do so here. Sentience is the capacity to feel, my evidence for this claim is (http://www.duhaime.org...). By this criteria that was just set, most common farm animals are now protected by human rights. So you shouldn’t be advocating for the continued tenure of abortion but rather forced vegetarianism. This is obviously just hyperbole on my part but it illustrates the point quite well that your criteria could never stand in society. c) If A is true, and if B is true, then it is also acceptable for a person to remove a non-human non-sentient growth from her body I can’t even tell what you’re saying here, you need to proofread. Conclusion 1 (a,b & c Modus Ponens)): It is also acceptable for a person to remove a non-human non-sentient growth from her body Proofread. d) All foetuses (prior to 24 weeks) are human non-sentient growths The fetus is not a growth, you’ve provided no evidence to support this claim. As the burden of proof is on me to refute, I will now provide evidence to refute your claim. According to several dictionaries such as: google, merriam-webster and dictionary.com; a growth is an abnormal formation such as a tumor. A fetus, which is part of the completely natural process of pregnancy, does not fit this criteria. Conclusion 2 (Conclusion 1 & d – BARBARA Syllogism): It is also acceptable for a person to remove a foetus from her body. While this syllogism doesn’t achieve much, it does narrow exactly what I will argue and what my opponent needs to refute, if premises a,b, c and d are true, then the conclusion follows deductively, thus Pro would needs to refute at least one of them to avoid the conclusion. Contentions D & B are wrong and contention C as well as conclusion 1 need to be proofread. Defence of A: We have no issue with removing shrapnel, basteria, cancers or parasites from out body in society. There are essentially no laws prohibiting this until it comes to humans. This premise is not in contention. If there is a parasite on someone’s brain and it limits function but will not kill then it is perfectly unacceptable to remove it because it would entail the host’s death. Secondly, you narrow down the criteria to growths in contention a, how do bacteria, shrapnel and parasites entail a valid defense to this criteria as they don’t fit the criteria themselves. Defence of C: Swapping situations by maintaining ethical equivalency will logically yield identical ethical considerations and outcomes. If tables are ethically equivalent to pens, then damaging either of them will yield the same ethical judgement. Now I get what you were trying to say. Agree. Defence of D: This is categorically true, foetuses are a type of growth that exist in women, and they are human. Moreover if Pro objects to the word “growth” here then this entire argument can simply be rephrased with “thing” replacing growth with exactly the same logical validity. They aren’t a growth (See response to contention 1 subpoint D), moreover it can’t be replaced with the same logical validity as you set two criteria necessary to establish rights for a human: sentience and not being a growth. By eliminating half of your criteria it effects your case dramatically. Defence of B: This is where I expect anyone who is against abortion to object. While we consider this false if we use adult humans as an example, we need to consider why we value sentient adult humans over non-sentient non-humans. The fact that adults are sentient, with their own values, and the fact that we empathise with such humans and fear harm coming to ourselves. If we fear harm coming to ourselves then we seek to avoid harm coming to people like ourselves, thus we rule against murder (the unjustified killing of sentient humans). However when we consider foetuses, they lack any of this capacity, their brains are not developed, they don’t have memories in the way we do, they don’t hold values, they don’t care, nor could they care, about their existence, or anything for that matter. Why was this not in your original contention? You hide all this extra criteria in this sub-point and it reduces your argument tremendously. You seek to make a point about values. That all humans who seek rights should have values. I find values to be subjective. Not everybody lives by a standard of behavior, or perhaps, the standard of behavior is twisted. For example, serial killers, they live by values, the values are disconnected, yet still remain values. If it is someone’s standard of behavior to kill as many people as possible then who gets to say whether those values hold validity. Another example, foxes. Foxes hold values, sure they are very primal values, yet values the same. What are values except standards of behavior, a fetus has standards of behavior. The fetus subsists itself, that’s certainly behavior and it holds to a constant standard. So I believe fetuses do have values, however values can’t have an objective definition so this criteria is faulty. Thus they are much like other living organisms, such as bacteria, fungi or parasites such as tapeworm, for which the same things apply. They for moral purposes, fall into this category since there is nothing of comparable value there to consider. In a world where the human life is not valued higher than that of a different species this species becomes non-existent. We eat other life to subsist ourselves. If we value all life the same then we either don’t eat or eat each other. Neither sounds like a suitable society, thus the only effective way to continue in modern society is to establish human life with a higher value than that of other life. Removal of an Inconvenience Childbird is a major inconvenience on the mother. The foetus consumes calories and nutrients from the mother, and essentially is a parasite to its mother host. Just like any other parasite, it is something that the mother can be entitled to remove from her body. We’ve established that it’s not a growth. If the mother wishes not to be inconvenienced then she can make that choice before she gets pregnant. If she chooses not to make that choice and chooses irresponsibility instead, then she can live with the inconvenience. Moreover full-term childbirth is physically strenous, exceptionally painful for the mother and often permanantly physically altering process. If she wishes to avoid strain on herself then she can make that choice before she gets pregnant. Contraception prevents pregnancy, abortion prevents birth. One is murder, the other is responsibility. To say this is an inconvenience is an understatement, and is something that should only be borne if the mother intends to keep the child, or wants to birth it and give it up. Abortion removes this issue. Once again, you fail to address the point that the mother can choose to have a child before that child is alive. The Mother takes Priority over the Foetus The mother is a conscious human being with memories, values and experience and knowledge of pain. The mother has real-world relationships and is often within the workforce generating capital when not impregnated. The foetus is an unconscious, or minimally conscious cluster of cells/tissue without anywhere near the extent of the aforementioned qualities. These are the qualities that we tend to value for moral reasons. The mother is a conscious human being who made the conscious decision to have unprotected intercourse. Afterwards, this mother realized the consequences of her *conscious* decision and now wants to murder her child. You make the comparison between the mother and the fetus; however this isn’t remotely true. You should be making the comparison between the effects of pregnancy and the life itself. Do we value 6 months worth of money and being fat for a while over the life of a child. Moreover, any foetus will have these qualities to a substantially lower extent than living domesticated animals for food consumption, e.g. Cows, sheep, even chickens. As a society we don't hold these to the same moral standards as a fully grown human mother would, thus why on Earth should we view a foetus as such? Tell Burger King to start selling flame-grilled whoppers made from 100% real human. See my response to your last point before the removal of inconvenience part. Thus, the mother, who wants to get rid of the parasite/foetus, should have priority over any arbitrary collection of human cells. I agree to an extent. The mother can get rid of her child before it exists by choosing to make smart decisions. Wel, sh*t, 4500 characters. Next rounds will be shorter. Please provide some sort of definition to these important terms you introduced. For example, sentience.