Forums → WEPR → Justify Abortion

@HahiHa

Any born human is, by definition, not a fetus.

But any born human was a fetus.

consent is therefore not an option.

Correct.

The decision has to be made by someone else, and the mother is the obvious choice.

Yes, the decision has to be made by someone else, but the question remains: is it morally permissible to have an abortion?

@FishPreferred

Your argument does not demonstrate that tumors and fetuses should be treated according to different ethical standards; it only assumes that they should without any explanation. That's why it's special pleading.

A fetus constitutes a part of a person, whose rights may not be infringed by another. A tumor constitutes a part of a person, who has the right to remove that harmful tumor. If a fetus weren't part of another person, then yes, it may be treated as a tumor. However, I hold the opposite: a fetus is part of a different person.

Dictionary.com:
irrelevant adjective
1 not relevant; not applicable or pertinent
2 Law. (of evidence) having no probative value upon any issue in the case.

You claimed that a fetus is not capable of reasoning, but by Merriam Webster's dictionary, capability is a feature or faculty capable of development, which clearly means that a fetus is capable of reason -- it may develop.

Nor does it need one, because a fetus is not possessing of any such right.

According to your definition of a person.

Astonishingly, this has no effect on the incorrectness of your statement.

I express the act of causing the death of a person as "taking the life of another," though in no way do I by this statement claim that life is merely a body.

In many cases, yes,

That killing is unjustified.

A tumor has its own unique DNA,

Yet it doesn't constitute, in whole or in part, a person.

But any born human was a fetus.

Any fetus was a pair of gametes, and any gamete was half of a diploid cell. No one seems to care much when a few thousand gametes or diploid cells are killed, so why draw the line between two set of unthinking, unfeeling, uncaring cells?

A fetus constitutes a part of a person, whose rights may not be infringed by another.

Then, by the same grounds, a tumor constitutes a part of a person, whose rights may not be infringed by another.

If a fetus weren't part of another person, then yes, it may be treated as a tumor. However, I hold the opposite: a fetus is part of a different person.

So, if someone (for whatever reason) implanted their tumor into another person, your statement would imply that it is unethical to treat or otherwise destroy that tumor, as it constitutes part of a different person.

You claimed that a fetus is not capable of reasoning, but by Merriam Webster's dictionary, capability is a feature or faculty capable of development, which clearly means that a fetus is capable of reason [...]

No, it obviously doesn't. It means that the word "capability" can refer to a thing that can develop from an undeveloped state. It says nothing about fetuses, because it has nothing to do with fetuses. What you're trying to argue is the biological equivalent of "sand is capable of attaining all human knowledge".

According to your definition of a person.

No, according to the law. The declaration of independence does not assign rights or personhood to fetuses, nor does any US legislation outside of Alabama, nor does Canada, nor for that matter does the UDHR.

I express the act of causing the death of a person as "taking the life of another," though in no way do I by this statement claim that life is merely a body.

Again, this has no effect on the incorrectness of your earlier statement.

That killing is unjustified.

Probably, but also irrelevant because, a person's house is not the same as a person's body.

Yet it doesn't constitute, in whole or in part, a person.

Then, by the same grounds, a fetus doesn't either. The trick here is to come up with something that actually makes any difference between the two matter.

@Ntech

But any born human was a fetus.

Exactly: was. Not is. Therefore irrelevant in the context you used it. Again, please use the terminology correctly.

Yes, the decision has to be made by someone else, but the question remains: is it morally permissible to have an abortion?

Indeed, that's the question. You know my position on the issue, as I do yours.
Somewhat related question: Am I correct in the assumption that when pro-lifers speak of "life", they/you mean human life, specifically? Not life in general, including other animals, plants, fungi, microbes, etc.?

A fetus constitutes a part of a person,

When you say "a part of", do you mean it as "a piece of" something bigger? Or do you mean something else?

Ntech:
A fetus has its own unique DNA, something unique to a separate life-form. If it were a part of its mother, its DNA would be hers.

FishPreferred:
So? A tumor has its own unique DNA, something unique to a dysfunctional cellular reproductive mechanism. If it were a part of its host, its DNA would be his/hers.

Ntech:
Yet it doesn't constitute, in whole or in part, a person.

(Emphasis added by me)
I could read it this way: You say that a unique genetic identity is a characteristic of a separate individuum/life-form. But you don't consider it, not even in part ("doesn't constitute, in whole or in part" ), a characteristic of being a person. How close is my interpretation to your position?