Two Pro-Choice Principles

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by LibertarianFTW, Feb 15, 2012.

  1. LibertarianFTW

    LibertarianFTW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I think the pro-choice argument can be boiled down to two distinct principles:

    1.) The fetus is not a human being and therefore does not have human rights.

    It's a simple fact: in order to have human rights, you must be a human being. The fetus is as human as the hair on my head. It contains human DNA, but this does not make a visit to the barber mass murder. Similarly, an abortion is merely a removal of a part of the body. Abortion is merely killing a potential human being, and is therefore the moral equivalence to a vasectomy, which kills the potential for reproduction.

    2.) Even if the fetus WAS a human being, abortion should still be permissible because of the property rights of the woman.

    We can use an analogy for this second principle. Let's say Rachel invites Jim over for dinner. After dinner, instead of leaving, Jim says "oh, by the way, I'm staying here for the next nine months." Rachel has the right to expel Jim from her property, even if he ends up dying later because of a lack of shelter. This is the simple concept of private property rights: each person undeniably owns their own person, labor, and therefore the fruits of their labor. They can trade their justly acquired property as desired, and obtaining property through trade is as legitimate as obtaining property through labor (if through labor, it would have to be undeclared property). Thus, the house that Rachel has justly acquired is her property, and she therefore has the right to expel people from her property. In the case of abortion, it does not even have to go this deep: we don't need the justification of you own your labor and therefore the fruits of your labor, because the fetus is directly within the mother's body. Because the woman undeniably owns her body, she has the undeniable right to expel people from her own body. Whether or not the fetus dies after because of a lack of uterus is irrelevant.

    It is of my belief that this is what the pro-choice argument breaks down to: one or both of these two principles.

    Now, the pro-lifer may have a fair objection to the first principle: the claim being that one becomes a human being from the moment of conception. Although it may not be obvious to us, since we are only familiar at looking at born human beings, from the moment of conception, contingent on the fetus not dying or being killed, the human status of the fetus becomes more apparent to us. "Fetus" actually translates to "a very young one." Meaning, the fetus is at a very young stage of human development. From the moment of conception, the fetus is in the process of human development, and is therefore a human being, thus why the scientific community has come to a consensus:
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRuJ7BupDxk"]The Scientific Status of the Fetus - YouTube[/ame]

    Note that this does not mean abortion is murder: it merely means that we cannot say at 12 weeks, the fetus becomes a human being and is entitled to human rights. These are all just arbitrary stages -- discriminating against one human being over the other based off age. A line that could be drawn that isn't as arbitrary would be "consciousness," but this would imply that you can kill people who have had a little too much to drink.

    Now, moving on to the second principle, let's first recognize that the woman has the right to abort her fetus at any stage of pregnancy, since the first principle cannot be used as legitimate, as I have demonstrated. Let's take our minds to the abortion clinic: Ron Paul brings up the story of when he witnessed an abortion. He saw a very small baby -- about two and a half pounds -- being aborted. The baby was crying and breathing. The doctor through the baby in a bucket, placed it in the corner, and everyone pretended as if they didn't hear the crying until it stopped. Now, what about when the fetus gets big, and they can vacuum out the bottom part of the baby, but can't fit the head out of the womb? Well, up until 2003, when it was outlawed, they jabbed a sharp object up the baby's neck, crushing its skull in, and then sliding the baby out that way. This is called partial-birth abortion. Under the second principle, this must be legal.

    To the example I used under the second principle: a better parallel analogy would be a woman driving in her car with her baby. She's driving on the highway -- she can't stop until a VERY long time ahead, and the baby is being EXTREMELY annoying, puking on her and such. She grabs the baby and throws him out the window, while the car is still in motion. You see, the car being still in motion represents the woman still being pregnant, and not being able to stop represents the woman having to wait until she can get a C-section or naturally expel the baby through labor if she wants to expel the baby safely. The analogy I previously used involves Jim being the aggressor: he has overstayed his visit and has therefore aggressed against Rachel. Rachel, therefore, has the right to use the retaliation of aggression and expel Jim from the presence. The baby, most clearly, is not aggressing.

    Indeed, the only logical conclusion is that abortion is murder.
     
    Unifier and (deleted member) like this.
  2. prometeus

    prometeus Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7,684
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well you did not think it through very well...
     
  3. LibertarianFTW

    LibertarianFTW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Could you elaborate a bit?
     
  4. prometeus

    prometeus Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7,684
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You chose two parameters you felt you can defeat.
     
  5. LibertarianFTW

    LibertarianFTW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay, again, could you elaborate? Can you give me your argument for why my OP is flawed? Are you saying my points in the OP are only specific to two principles, when, in fact, there are other principles that back the pro-choice position? What are these other principles?
     
  6. prometeus

    prometeus Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7,684
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry, I have to go now , but we can pick it up tomorrow.
     
  7. LibertarianFTW

    LibertarianFTW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Alright, see ya.
     
  8. danboy9787

    danboy9787 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1) Human hair contains dead cells, while a fetus contains living cells. And while it is true that it "relies" on the mother, it by itself is a self-contained and self-sustained unit. The mitochondria in the mother's cells do not need to perform the jobs of the mitochondria in the fetus's cells, etc. Comparing hair to a fetus is invalid, because hair does not include living tissue. I think we should strongly consider the fact that the fetus WILL BE a baby without abortion. That means destroying a fetus indirectly DOES in fact kill a baby.

    2) I think this is also a flawed argument because the argument sort of implies women can just spontaneously become pregnant. There is a clear act required for a woman to become pregnant, and she knows that performing that act carries certain risks-including pregnancy. Now we must also consider something else: this fetus WILL be a baby. Being a mother or even a pregnant mother does not grant the authority to own slaves. That means this fetus is not a 'property'. While it is part of the woman's body, it is still a separate entity.
     
  9. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I dont agree with 2. If fetus was a person, you CANNOT expell it from your property if would die in the process.

    Your analogy is incomplete, since Rachel wont die by simply leaving. But lets say there is a strong blizzard out there which would last 9 months. I such case, Rachel should not be allowed to expell Jim, and if she does so and Jim dies, she should be prosecuted for murder. Life and health are more important than property rights.

    Of course its all moot, since 1 is enough to justify legality of abortion. Fetus is not a person, therefore it is a thing with no rights at all and not a moral agent.
     
  10. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right, it's on her property - her body. She may have invited it over, but, at some point, she has the right to ask it to leave. Whether you can just kill a trespasser or must seek other, less lethal, means of removal first is another issue.
     
  11. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Analogies don't work for abortion. There is nothing else that can be compared to pregnancy and childbirth, so it's pointless even to try. One gets bogged down in trying to prove the rationality and acceptance of the analogy, which gets nobody anywhere.

    Not only that, though it's not how I'd put it myself, the first point is roughly on the lines of the pro-choice argument, but the second point doesn't hold water at all.

    An unborn human entity isn't a person, so doesn't have the rights of a person, making your second point totally redundant.

    I hesitate to call it a human being only because of the legal ramifications. The term "human being" may have a definite legal meaning that doesn't apply to unborn human entities, so unborn human entity it is, as far as I'm concerned.
     
    OKgrannie and (deleted member) like this.
  12. LibertarianFTW

    LibertarianFTW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    So what makes one a person and why? It seems logical that a human being deserves human rights, and, scientifically, the zygote is a human being.
     
  13. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I think its the property of having a mind.
     
  14. TheHat

    TheHat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    20,931
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Then explain how a "fetus" at 22 weeks can be delivered by c-section and survive in an ICU? Since, it's still considered a "fetus" at 22 weeks, we still have 14 weeks until actual full term pregnancy and full development is considered.

    How is that 22 week old "fetus" not a person even though it's laying there in an ICU alive & kicking?
     
  15. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It would depend on the legal meaning of human being, if there is one.

    They can't be persons because they haven't been born, so they cannot be given rights that pertain to people.
     
  16. LibertarianFTW

    LibertarianFTW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I notice you use the word "mind" and not "brain." How do you define this? The point of thought? I think therefore I am?
     
  17. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I was being not very accurate in the heat of discussion. I meant fetus before abortion limit is not a person.
    In my opinion, a fetus in the first trimester should not be a person (in reality, its 20 weeks when brainwaves, and hence the possibility of having a mind appear, but legal limit should be set a bit sooner just to be sure). So I would thus not agree with abortion of 22 week old fetus (except in case of health danger to the mother, when the personhood question becomes irrelevant).
     
  18. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    As soon as a foetus has been delivered, it becomes a person. it's gestational age at the time of its birth is immaterial to that.

    It is a person. It fits all the criteria of a person, although sadly it is very unlikely to be alive and kicking.
     
  19. LibertarianFTW

    LibertarianFTW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    So why is that the line which makes it a person?
     
  20. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Because it is no longer attached to the inside of a person - just as neither of us are attached to the inside of a person.
     
  21. LibertarianFTW

    LibertarianFTW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Why is this what makes someone a person?

    It seems as if you're implying that abortion should be legal because the fetus is not a person, and the fetus is not a person because abortion should be legal. It's circle logic, you see. Why not go by the scientific status of the fetus to determine human rights?
     
  22. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What else could it be that would make any sense?

    Because it's scientific status is nothing to do with it. It's all about location.
     
  23. LibertarianFTW

    LibertarianFTW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The scientific definition of a human being.

    Ah, so Person A can be superior to Person B based off location. For example, I could claim that it's not murder to kill Africans because they live in Africa. Your rights derive from your location...
     
  24. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It does not make sense at all for location to make / dont make someone a person. It should be an internal quality, not external.

    If someone inserted a person inside another person for 9 months, would it cease to be a person, and could be killed, even if it still had mind and consciousness?
     
  25. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No, that doesn't work.



    I assumed you would realise the location was outside of a person's body.
     

Share This Page