Abortion is about the most fundamental human right: self-ownership

Ah, there is no right to self-ownership. Got it.

 

I was hoping that you would question the symbiosis, because it affords me the opportunity to say what the fetus brings to the table in this exchange. It brings the most valuable asset of all, the perpetuation of the species, new life. That is what it brings to the human race, but to the parents specifically, it brings the continuation of their particular genetic code. This is the most important mission of any species on Earth, so the fetus certainly brings as much as it gets.

Only if we were to accept your premise that the only rights are individual rights. If we remove that unfounded assumption, then there is no problem.

 

That is not what symbiosis is. There is no biological benefit incurred by the mother as a result of the fetus growing inside of her, but there are biological harms. A mutal-symbiotic relationship is one in which there are no such harms. Here are the harms a fetus causes to a mother:

Here are some commonly talked about downsides of pregnancy
Nausea.
Constipation.
Sore boobs.
Vomit all day long, not just in the morning.
You can't eat your favorite foods because you'll throw up.
Indigestion and heartburn.
Braxton Hicks.
Depression.
Anxiety.
Constant crying.
Fatigue.
You look and feel like a fat cow.
You feel bloated.
You’re carrying around some extra weight.
Insomnia.
You have to (*)(*)(*)(*) like Seabiscuit every 20 minutes.

Now, onto some that are not mentioned much:
Hyperemesis gravidarum

Temporary and permanent injury to back

Severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)

Dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)

Pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
Eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)

Gestational diabetes

Placenta previa

Anemia (which can be life-threatening)

Thrombocytopenic purpura

Severe cramping

Embolism (blood clots)

Medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)

Diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles

Mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)

Serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)

Hormonal imbalance

Ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)

Broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")

Hemorrhage and numerous other complications of delivery

Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease

Aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)

Severe post-partum depression and psychosis

Research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy

Research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease.​

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/15/1082439/-The-fetus-is-a-parasite#

Now, let us look at some actual symbiotic mutualism:
Hummingbirds and flowers (or any species that pollinates).
A bird called the oxpecker that eats the ticks from deer.
Clown fish and sea anemones.

What do all the above have in common? There are real benefits to each participant and no harm. The same cannot be said for a pregnant woman and a fetus--that should be obvious.

The right to self-ownership is an individual right. (hence self-ownership). The right to life stems directly from that. Feel free to actually explain that such rights are not actually individual rights. Your assertion proves nothing.

 

Of course she's dependent on it. If it weren't for the pregnancy cycle, she(nor we) would exist. Period.

Perhaps, at this moment today the abortion of a child won't positively impact the numbers. But 20-30 years down the line(and even the U.N concurred), is that our population will actually decline significantly as the baby boomers move from retirement to the cemetery.

The idea that we only needed one boom to sustain a healthy human population is utterly laughable. The idea that life isn't sacrosanct is equally as laughable and utterly disproven.

You concurred that all life is essentially sentient. To be sentient is to be autonomous. At no point is the fetus's life the mother's(or the other way around).

The fact that both benefit from the other, and that the human race benefits from its own benevolent existence, brings more pros(a lot more) than cons to the pregnancy cycle from which we ALL devolve from.

Your statement can only be intellectually coherent if I concur to the notion that we have any differences, but we don't have none. The only difference is that we're further along the cycle.

There's no difference from us and any animal. We have a life cycle, and at the end of it is death. To continue our population, giving new birth is essential to the process.

Sure, do it at your own time and sure, it should only be done through consent and happy marriages with a consistent family. But it must be done. Time doesn't stand still for anyone, ask the dinosaurs about that lol.

 

It is completely absurd to suggest the woman is dependent on the fetus growing inside of her. Her life will go on regardless of whether or not her fetus lives or dies. I am talking about the relationship between a given mother and her fetus. You are talking about the relationship between the whole of humanity and the reproductive cycle, and that is your error. You are saying that because humanity is dependent on the reproductive cycle, a woman is dependent on her fetus. That is called a fallacy of division.

 

I'll just stop you right there. If you can't see survival of the species, and the passing on of your genetic code to the next generation as a biological benefit, then you have no idea what constitutes a biological benefit.

 

False. As long as both sides gain something more valuable than what they give up, it is mutual symbiosis, even if one or both sides lose something else less important in the process. It is still a net gain to both sides. In nature, there are always trade offs, always opportunity costs. Discomfort vs genetic immortality is an easy choice.

 

Symbiotic relationships do not involve harm. A pregnancy involves significant harm to the woman. I am sorry, but your argument simply fails. Second, I am talking about the relationship between a given mother and her fetus. You are committing a fallacy by blowing that up to all of humanity.

Furthermore, not all pregnancies necessarily increase the survival of the species. A mentally ill child will pose a burden on the species (from a strictly biological standpoint), as will children with physical disabilities. If the mother already has many children, the child will take away from the amount of care the already existing children get. In overpopulated areas, more children may actually hurt the survival of the species. Denser populations are more susceptible to diseases, and will have more problems with scarce resources.

Therefore, abortions should be allowed in the above cases, because not even your pseudo "survival of the species" benefit exists.

To take your absurd benefit further, you would also have to allow rape. Rape has the benefit of impregnating a woman, which will thus have the benefit of a new fetus and the same "survival of the species" benefit. Since this "benefit" is enough to override the woman's right to self-ownership in the case of pregnancy, it is also enough to override that same right when it comes to having sex.

 

Given the vast amount of harms I listed (that you didn't quote ironically) it is clear that a pregnant woman suffers a net loss from an unwanted pregnancy. Value is subjective to the woman, and she values not being pregnant more than having a child.

 

Of mutualism, wiki has this to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_interaction#Mutualism

If you want to get technical, the reason why it is actually only analogous to mutual symbiosis, as opposed to actually BEING mutual symbiosis, it that the term is used to refer to interactions between different species. The scientific classification system would actually put the mother/fetus relationship in the category called "evolutionary co-operation". Same concept, different classification system.

You don't think any of those toothpick birds ever got eaten by a crocodile? There are better ways to live one's life than in the jaws of death, but the free meal appears to be worth the opportunity cost and risk of harm.

In addition to the benefit to the species (which it would be a fallacy to ignore), I also showed the benefit to the mother herself. Her specific genes will live on.

Ah, speaking of fallacies, here you come with a reductio ad absurdum.

 

Are you implying that the human species in decline?

How exactly is that a benefit? I am sure you would agree that there are some people who should not reproduce...

Is it? Why? It is a natural extrapolation of what you asserted.

 

Ask someone who understands written language to explain to you what I wrote, THEN try to make a reply, because as of now you are still on the old track, LAUGHABLE.

 

A woman may "value"(verb) a pregnancy, or anything else, subjectively. But that doesn't mean that "value"(noun) is subjective. A thing can have value even if it is unrecognized.

 

Lol what a funny post.

But why are you ignoring my valid arguments? I am trying to explain why self sustainability has nothing to do with personhood, and you don't even make a relevant response to my statements.

 

Yes, it was to balance the sad one you made.

I am ignoring nothing, you as usual have not made any.

Yes you are trying, unfortunately you are still not succeeding.

Of course I did, I laughed.

 

No, not now, but without new life, it wouldn't take long at all until it would be in decline (to the point of extinction).

Wow, you called my argument fallacious for mentioning a benefit to the species rather than the mother (though I did give it), so I restate the benefit for the mother, and now you're talking about the effect on the species! Where are those goal posts now?

No, it is not. First, rape most likely will not impregnate a woman. Therefore, the new life is just a potential (and, as pro-choice types like to say, potential life is not life). I am talking about an existing arrangement, you are talking about creating a new one.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't realize that I was talking to someone other than liberalis. So when I said "you" I meant liberalis.

 

Explain why sustainability defines personhood.

 

As a general point of information you are right, but in the light of the reality that abortion as it has been and is practiced has not had a negative impact on the survival of the species, thus making your point moot.

Not quite, although I will admit that some misunderstanding took place. Call it my fault, just know that moving goal posts was and is not my intent. So lets clarify it, to what benefits specifically are you referring?

No, it is not. First, rape most likely will not impregnate a woman.[/quote]That is true but it still happens and why should it be excluded?

I did not say that. Life is life, and some is and some is not significant.

Fair enough, but can I play too?

 

Right. But a mother-fetus relationship is analogous to parasitic one, not one of mutualism.

I don't know what you are going on about with the crocodile analogy, but to your point about the mother's genes living on...that is not a benefit to the mother. That her genes are passed on in no way helps her to better live her life in anyway. The notion of genes being passed on as a benefit is socially constructed, and is perfectly valid in a social sense if people deem it so, but not in a biological one. If a tiny parasite eats the sperm of a human male, and somehow is transmitted to a female and thus impregnates her, passing the genes on, the parasite is still a parasite, and the benefit of passing the DNA on is hardly a benefit.

Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. It is commonly used in mathematical and philosophical reasoning. It is logically necessary for your argument to support the legalization of rape if you hold "survival of the species" to be a legitimate reason to strip away self-ownership rights. It may very well be that such is the case, but that is a highly unlikely logical outcome, and puts your original premise into serious question.

 

Yes it does. Value (noun) is entirely subjective. What is objective is the right to self-ownership. That cannot be denied. And the woman has that right, and thus the right to an abortion, because the fetus is biologically dependent on the woman, is violating her self-ownership by living off of her body without her consent, and is not even an individual with rights.

You have to prove 2 things, and have failed to do so:
1. A fetus is biologically independent from the mother (and thus has individual rights).
2. Individuals have the right to live inside other individuals, cause them physical and emotional harm, and drain their resources without their consent.
3. This right to live inside another individual and cause these harms overrides the individual's more fundamental right of self-ownership.

Good luck. Doing so would require overturning the entire framework of individual rights as we know it.

 

The only way you can reach that conclusion is to deny the benefit.

The biological imperative to perpetuate one's bloodline is as applicable to one human as it is to the collective.

Like slippery slope, reductio may or may not be a fallacy, depending on its usage. The fallacious reductio is one of the straw man variety. So, how does your portrayal of my argument differ from my actual argument? Well, I said that the loss of "individual rights" occurs when she becomes no longer an individual, but an amalgamation of humans. In the case of rape, that has not yet occurred, so she is still an individual.

 

Actually, all I have to do is say that a combination of two of more humans is not an individual, so your entire argument falls down.

 

That is true but it still happens and why should it be excluded?

I did not say that. Life is life, and some is and some is not significant.

Fair enough, but can I play too?[/QUOTE]I touched on most of this in my last post to liberalis, but as to your first sentence, I don't see how the human race needs to be "in decline" before the benefit is recognized. And the benefit is that a person will achieve the closest thing to immortality that this world has to offer.

 

No. A leech can provide the benefit of secreting anticoagulants into the human host, reducing blood clots, which may actually help the human host if that is desired. But it is still a parasite, even if you accept there are potential benefits. With that said, your alleged benefits are not even benefits, whereas the harms are blatantly clear and numerous.

Equivocation. An imperative is not a benefit.

No, reductio ad absurdum is never a fallacy. Other fallacies often disguise themselves as such. And my argument in no way did so.

Let me break down what you are saying, because to be honest you are jumping between multiple arguments.

First, the argument I just responded to is the notion that the benefit of "survival of the species" strips a woman of her right to self-ownership. Now you say you are not really arguing that "survival of the species" is sufficient to take away a woman's right so self-ownership. Ok, fine, although why you brought up "survival of the species" unless it somehow justifies banning abortion is beyond me.

Second, your new argument is that pregnant women are not individuals, and thus do not have individual rights. That means a pregnant woman has no right to self-ownership, and thus all the rights that stem from self-ownership. Stop and think about that for a moment. Pregnant women are not individuals. Really? Do you honestly believe that? Given that reasoning, you logically must support the rape of a pregnant women, since she is no longer an individual with individual rights. After all, you said the reason you could not rape a non-pregnant woman was because "she is an individual". Well, a pregnant woman, according to you, is not, so by your own logic raping a pregnant woman is necessarily an ok thing to do.

 

If that is the case, then the fetus has no individual right to self-ownership, and thus no right to life, and the woman can abort it.

There is only one human being, the pregnant woman. The fetus is not a biologically autonomous individual. Therefore, there is no combination of multiple humans--just one. So yes, you do have to prove that a fetus is actually an individual (meaning biologically independent of the mother)--that is the premise of your entire argument.

And even if you manage to prove a fetus in a biologically indepedent individual, you still have to prove the following to justify prohibiting abortion:
1. Individuals have the right to live inside other individuals, cause them physical and emotional harm, and drain their resources without their consent.
2. This right to live inside another individual and cause these harms overrides the individual's more fundamental right of self-ownership.