Laura2000mi

Thank you very much for the link. It is going to take me a long time to digest it. Deep stuff!

I guess I would say then that my only logical argument to support the pro-choice side is this: If you kill the fetus prior to it becoming a person, then it is never immoral. If you kill the fetus after it becomes a person, then it is always immoral. If you do not define abortion as the killing of an innocent person in the womb, but define it as "the killing of a fetus in the womb who has not yet become a person", then abortion is not immoral, and people who are pro-choice are validated. That is the ONLY way I could argue that abortion is ever moral. All other arguments are empirical and have to do with things that cannot be ABSOLUTELY determined (happiness, goodness, etc.). My argument is deontological (a priori) in nature, and uses inherent rights. A priori arguments always trump empirical arguments, because arguments using "things we know to be absolutely certain" can never be disproved by arguments using "things we have strong opinions about". If the class I am in was ethics, then my argument should receive an A. If the class I was in was "debate", then I suppose I could fail the assignment. It really depends on the teacher. If you would like, I could email my ethics professor my above "argument for pro-choice" and see what grade he gives me... I could/would never argue that "x = 1 and x does not =1". If a teacher gave me that assignment, I would walk out of the room, because it is impossible. For some things, you cannot play "the devil's advocate" and logically argue the position. Some things...are just impossible. Debating them is therefore worthless. If you find that my arguments prove that there is no clear-cut answers about anything (maybe I just misinterpreted what you were saying?), you are mistaken. There is no clear-cut argument to support the moment a fetus becomes a person. We must follow are hearts (and hopefully use our brains [logic]) in that aspect. But every argument regarding morality (is this moral or is it immoral?) MUST have an answer...we just don't always know for certain what that answer is. What arguments seem circular? Please tell me so I can make them stronger (being totally honest, not sarcastic). I don't pretend to know all the answers, I just know that all the answers can be known. That is why I like to debate. P.S. I would in no way call myself an experienced debater. The first time I ever even tried to argue in this style was last fall, when I took bioethics. I will admit, I didn't understand most of what I was taught at first. But, after awhile it began to sink in, and now I feel I am fairly decent at logical debate. Experienced? No. But decent? I suppose. It helps alot when you realize that there are certain "rules" that can never be broken, or else the entire argument is invalid (contradiction, "absoluteness", etc.).

i am not sure what you are saying here. dead tissue does not turn into a living being, no. life cannot come out of death. but we know for absolute certain that one of these three things must be true: living tissue (a fetus) is always a human being, living tissue (a fetus) is never a human being, or living tissue (a fetus) becomes a human being. if it is always a human being, it is always immoral to kill it. if it is never a human being, it is never immoral to kill it. if it becomes a human being, it is not immoral to kill it prior to the point at which it becomes a human being. what were you inferring by the rolling eyes smiley?

I admit that I am not able to "prove" that personhood begins at conception, but that is the earliest possible point where it could begin, and so by using that point as (conception), I know a priori that I will never murder an innocent person, and thus never be immoral (in regards to murder. We are all immoral at SOME point in life). I cannot prove that I am right, but I have absolutely no risk of being immoral. If you use any point other than conception as your moment of "personhood" and cannot absolutely prove that you are correct, you will always run the risk of murdering an innocent person. You may be correct and the fetus is question is not yet a person (and so the procedure was not immoral), but the risk is always there nontheless. If say that "I am not sure if this is immoral or not, therefore it is possible I could be acting immorally" and you commit the act, I think (I am not certain though) that is just as immoral as knowing for a FACT that what you are doing is immoral. Example: If I drive through a neighborhood and shoot at the houses with a semi-automatic weapon and kill someone, I have acted immorally (murder). If I drive through a neighborhood and shoot at the houses with a semi-automatic weapon but I do not kill anyone, I have not committed murder. I think you can argue that since I wan't sure if people would be killed or not by my actions, but my intent was to kill them, I was indeed acting immorally. I don't argue to try to make people "believe the same as me". I argue because when we do so (in a consteuctive fashion) everyone learns more about what it is they believe and WHY they believe it. I argue because I KNOW there is a right and a wrong answer, and I want to figure out what it is. If one day I (or anyone else) is able to PROVE that personhood begins at conception, I would certainly HOPE that society would then argee that since abortion is immoral (the murder of an innocect person), we should no longer do it. Maybe that is alot to ask of society? I don't know. People do things all the time that they KNOW is wrong. How would I argue freedom of choice? Hmm. All women obviously have the "choice" to do whatever they want. Having the ability to choose something does not make the thing moral. I have the "choice" to rape someone, but I choose not to, because rape is always immoral. I do not 100% understand what you are asking me. Are you asking me to argue "for" fredom of choice? I will try my best. But if I am not answering your question, ask me again, and hopefully I will better understand what you are saying... Well, the only way that removal of a fetus from the womb with intent to kill it could possibly be moral is if the fetus was not yet a person...unless you believe that murder (the intentional killing of an innocent person) is always moral. (Murder cannot be moral and immoral, it is always moral or always immoral.) Let's assume that personhood starts at viability. (We cannot prove viability for certain only can "reasonably expect" viability...for we cannot know the future. But right now, let's say viability is the point of personhood. NOTE: not the defintion of viability as in "x gestational week" or "x weight", but viable in that it WILL survive outside of the womb.) Prior to the fetus becoming viable, it is ok to kill it, because it is not yet a person, merely tissue. Any "procedure" (I hesititate to call it "abortion" because abortion must involve murder of a person under this logical argument) which removes the tissue is not immoral. Any procedure which occurs after viability is abortion and therefore immoral. Circumstances of the pregnancy cannot logically change this. Now let's assume that personhood starts at birth. You would have to be very specific in how you define "birth". Is "birth" when the fetus leaves leaves the lady partsl canal? Then fetuses born by cesarian section are not people. Is "birth" when the fetus leaves the uterus? Then to make the "procedure" moral you must make 100% sure that the fetus is dead before you remove it from the uterus, or else the second the living (but possibly/probably damaged) fetus was removed it would become a person and you would then have to provide it with life saving medical care, for killing it after it after it left the uterus would be immoral. So...using "birth" as your personhood point is really difficult. You would have to be EXTREMELY explicit with what you define "birth" as. I do not believe that the "circumstances" can ever logically allow for abortion (killing of a person) to be moral, since that would be a direct contradiction ("x = 1 AND x does not = 1"). But I guess we could argue some common arguments for pro-choice. All of the following arguments assume that the fetus IS a person. (If the fetus is not yet a person, there is no need to argue it because the "procedure" would be moral anyway.) "Women have the right to control what happens to their bodies." I disagree with this statement, because if women had the right to control their bodies, then they could actually do it. I do not believe women have "control" their bodies. When I say that, I mean the part of us which chooses between morality and immoraltity (the "free will" part) cannot control our entire body. Our free will can control parts of our body: our hands, our mouths, anything voluntary. The biological part of a woman controls all of our involuntary functions. If the free will part could control our entire body, then women could say "hey ovaries, I am not ready to get pregnant yet, but I want to have sex. So don't ovulate and we're covered." I would not say that "women have the right to control their bodies", because they do not have the ABILITY to control their bodies. How can somehave a right to something that is impossible? I would say "women have the right to control some parts of their bodies, the parts that are voluntary." The parts which are involuntary (ex: the reprodcutive system) cannot make us be moral or immoral (the reproductive system merely does its function. It cannot influence morality, for we have no direct control over it. (Does this make sense? It is really hard to articulate what I am trying to say...) Also...I remember Fergus asking about pills: women can take pills which alter the reproductive system's cycles, so can they indeed "control" their bodies. I would still say no, the pills are controlling the bodies, not the woman herself.) "Women have the right not to be used as incubators." I would disagree with this too. Women ARE biological incubators. We cannot choose to be incubators sometimes and sometimes not, because if all the "stuff" is still there, you are still in fact a biological incubator. The fact than an incubator is empty does not mean it is no longer an incubator. It is just not currently "incubating". If the woman physically removes the part of herself which performs the incubating (ie: hysterectomy), THEN she is no longer an incubator, and would then no longer have the ability to become pregnant, and would never have the option of choosing abortion. Until then, a woman is an incubator, and cannot have a right not to be used in that way. ("I am a wife, but have the right not to be used as a wife" also does not work. If I am a wife, I am a wife. Simply thinking "I have a right not to be a wife right now, so I am no longer a wife, and cannot be used as a wife" does not make it true.) "Women have the right (insert any statement here)" This can never be the start of an argument which is trying to justify abortion. All people have rights. Arguably, one right that every innocent person has is the right to be left alone (if you are guilty of committing a crime, you forfeit your right to be left alone, therefore the police can take you to jail); the right to keep on living. If the fetus is a person (and if it isn't than there is no argument, because the "procedure" is not immoral), then it too, must have rights. Even if you adamantly believe that "the woman has the right to.....", and even if they actually DO have whatever right you are arguing, there is no escaping the fact that the fetus must have rights to. If the fetus has a right to live (and it does if it is a person), then the woman cannot take it away from it. Some rights are not more "rightful" than other rights. Even if you say "the fetus has the right to be left alone because it is a person, so the mother has the right to be left alone (not be burdened by pregnancy) because she is a person", AT BEST you have a stalemate, because all rights are equal. One person's right to be left alone is no more important that another person's right to be left alone. I know there are more arguments which can be made, but I am at work right now, and need to close here. Do you have any special circumstance which you would like me to argue? I can continue on later if you would like.

Okay fergus (and all else reading this), this is my very first, original "all-by-myself" argument. The other stuff I was arguing was based somewhat on things I was taught by other philosophers, but the following argument is my own (and therfore probably not very good ). It is an attempt to prove that conception is the moment that "personhood" (for lack of a better word) is attained. Is my argument sound? Probably not. Does it prove anything? Probably not. But, regardless, I am still going to throw it out here so you all can tear it apart and show me where it needs to be "tweaked". Hopefully this will make me a better "mini-philosopher". ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.Murder is the killing of an innocent person and is always immoral. Murder cannot be moral and not moral, for that is a contradiction. It must be one or the other, and I hope we all agree that given the two choices, we would all say that murder is immoral. 2.There is a specific instant at which a fetus becomes a person. Every fetus must endure this specific instant, otherwise not all fetuses would become "people", and some adults in our society would be defined as adult fetuses (not "people"). We could then kill any adult who was merely an "adult fetus" at any time for any reason, because it is not immoral to kill a fetus if it is not a person. 3.The point of transition into personhood must be exactly the same for every fetus. The event must be universal. There is no other option, for we cannot look at a random fetus and predict what specific event gives this fetus personhood. If x causes a fetus to become a person, x must cause every fetus to become a person. The formation of cartilage cannot grant "personhood" to some fetuses and the beating of the heart grant "personhood" to other fetuses. If the point a fetus become a person was not universal, there would be no way to establish that the necessary event had occurred, and personhood could never be determined. If personhood can never be determined, you will never know if the fetus is just human tissue or an actual person. Abortion would then always be immoral, since it is immoral to murder a person. If you cannot prove that the fetus is not a person, you cannot justify killing it, at the risk by acting immorally. 4.Something must physically happen within or to each specific fetus which has the direct effect of bestowing personhood, and it must change the fetus in some way. (Change must occur to the fetus, otherwise the moment could never be proven to have occurred). If you cannot provide evidence of the moment, you cannot PROVE that the moment has occurred and if the fetus is a person or not, and you could never justify abortion. 5.There is only one event that physically occurs at a specific instant, in exactly the same way for every fetus: the joining of the egg and the sperm to create a fertilized egg. Every other milestone is slightly different from fetus to fetus. The fertilized egg will not for CERTAIN divide into two cells at x specific time. Likewise, the heart will not begin beating at x specific time for each fetus. Viability will not be CERTAIN at x specific time, etc. In order for abortion to ever be moral, you would have to be CERTAIN that the event has indeed occurred, so that you are not potentially murdering a person. You can be certain that the egg and sperm have joined to form a new tissue, because a fertilized egg will contain DNA that is different than that of the egg and sperm (not too mention a full 46 chromosomes, instead of 23). 6.Therefore, life/personhood begins at the uniting of the egg and sperm to create a fertilized egg. From this point on it is a person, and killing it is murder (which is immoral). If killing a fertilized egg is murder, than all abortion is also murder and therefore immoral.

No, I am not saying abortion is immoral and moral at the same time. I am saying circumstances and time affect it. You conceded that murder is not murder if it isn't a person being killed (like the tapeworm). If a fetus is not a person before a certain point, like I think, then it isn't wrong to abort it before then and is wrong to abort it after when it becomes a person. I agree. The reason you appear to be contradicting yourself (by appearing to say that abortion is wrong and abortion is not wrong) is because I define abortion as the murder of a person. If the tissue is not yet a person, then I wouldn't define the procedure as abortion, I would call it "surgery" or "tissue removal" or something of that sort. When I use the word abortion, I am assuming that it is a person being killed. When you use the term abortion, it could be a person OR tissue. So we agree. (If you make your definitions as specific as possible, I won't be able to accuse you of contradiction, and arguing will be much easier, because we will both know what the other is saying. ) Since I already gave examples of when stealing and killing are moral, I thought that was enough to say that there are instances where morality is affected by circumstances. I would say that stealing is never moral. Lets say that your children are about to die of hunger. You rush to the nearest grocery store and steal a few canned goods. You race home, but your children are already dead when you arrive. You stole for nothing. You say "stealing is moral in order to save your children". But in fact you did not save them, they are already dead. So, you acted immorally by stealing, since it was only ok to steal if your kids were saved. Since we can never know the outcomes of our actions, we can never use outcomes to justify morality. Outcomes cannot be proven beforehand, only guessed at. The same could be said of lying. It is always wrong to lie. Let's say a man was chasing a small boy, trying to kill the boy. The boy runs into your house in a panic, and out the back door. The man shortly follows. He sees you standing there and asks "which way did he go?" You can lie to the man or not lie. Many people would lie and said "he ran upstairs", hoping the man would be thrown off the trail, and the boy would escape. So, you lie, the man stays in the house, but the boy has climbed back into the house through an open window, hoping that the man was close enough on his heels to see that he had exited the house through the back door. But...you lied, and so the man was still in the house, and is now face to face with the boy and kills him. If you would have told the truth, the boy might have survived. We cannot justify immorality in "certain situations" because we can never know for certain the outcomes of our actions. "Lying is moral, because the boy's life will be saved" is not adequate justification for immorality...because we will never know for sure "if the boy's life will be saved". In situations where we do not know [for certain] what the outcome will be (which is every situation), morality is the only option. [Though if you were really quick on your toes, when the man asked you "which way did he go" you could just not say anything and avoid the moral issue altogether.] Killing CAN be moral (killing in self defense, killing a tapeworm, killing during war). Murder (the intentional killing of an innocent person) can not. Remember, you must be as specific as possible when arguing logically, because it is when we are not specific that our arguments might become contradictions, or be misinterpreted. If I ever said that killing was always immoral, I misspoke, and apologise. But really, I still don't think "Is morality absolute or not?" is even important to the question of "Is abortion immoral or not?". We're being sidetracked. I think it is relevant. If we prove that morality is absolute, then we know for a fact that abortion cannot be moral sometimes and immoral sometimes. We know that it must be one or the other, from the beginning of time until eternity. And if we prove that morality is absolute, then that in turn disproves all of your special circumstances arguments. When something is absolute, no circumstance can change it. (The only "circumstance" we could use is when you or I do not define abortion explicitly. Abortion being defined as the murder of a person in the womb. I wouldn't really call that a "circumstance", but an oversight.) Your real argument is murder is wrong. Abortion is murder. So by extension, abortion is wrong. (Like the x+z, x=y so y=z thing right?). Correct me if I am wrong. That's a perfectly logical argument consistent with your beliefs and I understand why you would believe it. Yeah for logic! And if abortion occurs when it isn't a person yet, it can't be murder, so it can be morally ok. Yes! Yes! Abortion is immoral because the fetus is a person. "The procedure commonly referred to as abortion but which only kills/removes human tissue, not an actual person" is not immoral (and also not abortion). I know that in "real life" abortion can be interpreted by the general population as both killing of a person and killing of a fetus. But when we are arguing logically, we need to be explicit with our definitions. Can you acknowledge that IF a fetus isn't a person, it isn't murder and by extension isn't immoral? To me, that means the real question relates to a fetus being a person or not. Yes! That is exactly what I am saying! Yeah, now we're getting somewhere. The ONLY factor which we need to look at in our arguments is "at which point does the fetus become a person". That is the question. Totally morality or total immorality hang on this question.

Steph- what do you mean the the unique soul (person) is lost? Isn't the soul eternal? If not, how do the childen get to heaven? I am just curious what you mean when you say the soul is lost, I am not disagreeing with you. Usually I hear people say a "soul is lost", they mean that it is going to hell.

Fergus- I would like to continue our debate if you are willing, but I might need a day or so (or maybe just a few hours...) to "catch my breath". I was up last night at 4:00 am having all of this stuff race though my head. I feel alot better about our argument now, and I hope you did not take any offense to my post. I do not challenge your intelligence in any way. A suggestion: I think it would be best (at least for me) if we kept our posts shorter, and our arguments/questions of each other more defined/specific [does this make sense? I having trouble findig the right words]. When we were replyng back and forth using gigantic posts, it seems some of what you were asking me went unanswered and vice versa. Ready for round two?

Well, I would argue that there are two sides to us as persons: the animalistic part, and the eternal (soul) part. The animalistic part is our bodies, and the eternal part of us could also be referred to as our free will, the ability to chose between moral and immoral actions, our consience. We are the only beings on earth with a free will (animals can not make moral decisions, as they are totally animalistic), and therefore, the only beings on earth with a soul. Since to be a person means you have an animamilstic side (our bodies) and an eternal side (our soul), then as soon as a fetus becomes a person, they have a soul. I am a religious person too, and take great pride and joy in the fact that so far, every aspect of my religion/beliefs that I have questioned has proven to be sound using logic. (I would go a step further and say that it is impossible for the Bible [and therefore God] to be illogical, but that is an argument for another day. Besides...I haven't gone through ALL the arguments yet. )

Thank you in return. I will admit, I was really worried that I would be flamed on the spot, as some of my beliefs could be considered "close minded". But, no flames came, and every one was respectful of each other, either by silently looking on, or by engaging me head to head in a respectful debate. And fergus: just so you know (and can feel guilty) this debate kept me up half the night tossing and turning.

It is not a question of "if this fetus survives to adulthood, will it become a person?". (Any fetus that survives to adulthood WILL become a person.) The question, and similarly, the burden of proof lay in proving the fetus NOT to be a person, because left to it's own devices, the fetus will always become a person. So the pivot point MUST be viability, then, not non-viability. You cannot prove that something is not going to become something in the future because it is not that thing right now. Since the fetus will definately become a person at some point, there must be a moment of transition (from human tissue to human being). A worm is non-viable in terms of becoming a person. A dog is non-viable in terms of becoming a person. A dog and a worm will NEVER be viable to become people. So at what point does the fetus become a person? Saying that the burden of proof is on proving that "fetuses become people" is the same as saying "murder, rape, and slavery are always moral because it is unprovable when we become people." So does that mean that it would be ok to abort a mid trimester fetus? Sometimes they aren't viable. "Life" (meaning existence of a human being) obviously begins sometime between the moment before conception, and the moment after birth. Arguably, life is the moment an organism that, allowed to follow a natural course of developement, would be capable of becoming a person. If left in the womb, all fetuses without defect from the moment of conception are viable, meaning capable of developing adulthood. You probably say "no, only fetuses that have reached the clinical definition of viability are considered viable". Then tell me IF fetuses BEFORE the clinical definition are inviable, then how do viable fetuses exist between the moment of conception and this "moment of viability" (23 weeks)? You cannot use the definition of viability to be "ability of fetal survival outside of the womb" because it is not specific enough. Fertilized eggs do indeed survive outside of the womb (for a short time) also, fetuses with the gestational age of 23 weeks also can survive outside of the womb (for a short time). BOTH can survive indefinately with outside assistance, with the assistance of another "womb" (artificial or biological). Without an artificial "womb" (an incubator) the "viable" fetus is no more likely to survive than the "inviable" fetus. Therefore, at the moment of conception, the fetus is just as viable as it is at any other time in the gestational cycle with the exception of the last two months (or so). During the last two months, you can birth the baby and it may survive TOTALLY unassisted by artificial womb (incubator).

Fergus- Please understand that I have the utmost respect for you as a person and as a nurse, and sincerely do not mean to be disrespectful or rude when posting this. I have spent a long time "tweaking" this so that it hopefully comes across the way I intend it. I apologize in advance if any of this is offensive to you. That said, we really need to level the playing field if we are going to continue this debate. I have enjoyed "sparring" with you, but right now I feel that you are not arguing using logic, and so I need to reiterate some things. In logic, there are absolutes. Their must be, or there is no logic. The whole basis for logical arguments is if all the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true and the argument is valid. If the premises are false, the conclusion then is false and the argument is invalid. If I prove x = y, and y = z, then x = z. Always. There is no escaping it. You then must concede to my argument. That is the whole idea of logic, that you can prove things a priori. 1. When people die, they are no longer living. 2. George Washington is no longer living. 3. Therefore, George Washington is dead. Since #1 and #2 are both true, #3 must also be true. I say that morality is absolute. You say that it is relative. You are wrong. The argument "abortion is moral AND abortion is immoral" is a contradiction. It is absolutely 100% IMPOSSIBLE. It is the same as saying "x = 1 and x does not = 1". This is mathematically, a priori, always, 100% incorrect. This is not my opinion, it is a well accepted, logically established fact. Abortion, therefore, must either be moral or immoral. It cannot be both. It cannot possibly be relative. It must be absolute, or it is a contradiction, and ALL contradictions are logically impossible. You cannot describe one thing or idea that has a certain quality and at the same time does not have that quality. It is illogical and impossible. Try it: "I am Laura and I am not Laura." "The earth is round and the earth is not round." "Stealing is wrong and stealing is not wrong." "You are a nurse and you are not a nurse." "3 + 2 = 5 and 3 + 2 does not = 5" "God does exist and God does not exist." "Abortion is moral and abortion is not moral." If you cannot concede to this, then you are not using logic, and any argument you give me has no more logical merit than "the sky is blue, today is Thursday, therefore abortion is immoral." If you think you have a logical argument which proves that abortion can be moral AND immoral, you are mistaken. All life as we know it is bound under the laws of logic. There is no escaping it. I can say for a fact and be absolutely sure that abortion is either moral or immoral. It cannot be both. It cannot be relative. You have ignored a direct question that applies to your argument that morality is relative. In post #331, I said: "So rape then can be right AND wrong, and is acceptable in some circumstances. What are these circumstances?" You ignored this question, leaving it out of your reply back to me. You cannot prove that morality is relative, but I can prove a priori that it is absolute. If you accidentally overlooked my question, that is one thing, but if you intentionally didn't respond because you knew you were wrong, this makes me question whether arguing with you is productive (not productive meaning someday I will change your mind and make you believe what I believe, but productive in that we are both exploring our arguments openly and in a logical, fair way). If you logically prove an argument to me, I will concede to it. Likewise, you should do the same. If you still insist that morality is relative, even though I have provided you with an a priori argument which proves the contrary, I must conclude that you are not using sound logic when formulating your arguments. If we both aren't using the same method to prove our arguments true or false, then there is no point in continuing the conversation, and both our time has been wasted. You are a smart person. I do not understand how you can possibly conclude anything other than morality must be absolute, given my argument. I have given you everything you need to come to this conclusion. The reason arguing a moral issue is so intriguing to me is because I KNOW for a FACT that it must be either moral or immoral. There is a right and a wrong answer every time. We may not be able to prove the issue to be moral or immoral right now, but the correct answer exists nonetheless. It is like searching for a treasure that you know MUST exist. You just need to find it. Likewise, the correct answer to our argument "is abortion moral or immoral?" does exist, we just need to find it. If you agree to use logic as a means of proving or disproving your/my arguments, then I will happily answer your questions regarding viability and absoluteness. If not, then I must respectfully end our argument here. Fair-well and good luck.

Actually, that is the key to our argument. You must prove that after twenty weeks (or whatever number) there is guaranteed "viability", in order for viability to be the discerning factor. It HAS to be absolute. Not "likely". Absolute. The burden of proof lies in that there is no guarantee even after this elusive point of viability has been reached. So, is viability viability if it's not ALWAYS viable? Also, the definition we have for viability must be narrowed down, to explain what the difference is between a fetus in the first week of pregnancy, and a fetus in the twenty first. If you remove either fetus, they may both die if left alone. However, if moved to nurturing environment (1st week: a womb, 21st week: extreme neonatal care), they may both survive. There must be something unique to the fetus as a person, vs. the fetus as tissue or else they are the same thing. I am not saying that immediately upon fertilization, there is guaranteed survival. What I am saying, is that survival is no more "guaranteed" after viability, so by definition, viability cannot be the standard point at which the fetus loses it's tissue status, since viability is not proven to be a universally standard benchmark. All we have is a generic, inspecific idea of viability. Stating that a fetus has reached the age of viability does not make it viable. Stating that the fetus has not reached the age of viability does not make it inviable. So what is viability then, if the state of viability is not different from the state of inviability?

"A newborn is independent. It survives outside of the womb. It doesn't need to live off of your body.... Maybe a better word would be individual or viable as in capable of living in the environment, not in another person's body? If you removed the fertilized egg from the moment of conception, and put it in a test tube, or some other place, it would still survive for a period on its own. (IVF) Therefore, from the moment of conception, it IS capable of living in the environment. Or is the amount of time it is capable of survival the discerning factor? If so, then abortion is always wrong, because you will never know how long the fertilized egg/fetus would have survived if you didn't abort it. "OK, you're consistent in your beliefs. I do think they are more extreme than most people's in this matter. I don't consider myself to have commited an abortion when I use BCPs." Consistency is important in logic, and in life as well. And note: I do not consider ALL birth control to be causing abortion...just certain ones (ones that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting). Sorry, I thought you were arguing abortions shouldn't be allowed because they harm a person, the fetus. If that's the case, I don't see how we could ignore other ways women harm fetuses. Implications always get me thinking. Yes...they get me thinking too. Please do not think that the details aren't important to me, or relevant in society, I was just trying to stick with this argument, so that the main focus was not lost. We could argue all these additional things, but they would be irrelevant to the argument of the morality/immorality of abortion. My definition hasn't been disproven since we were speaking of different things. I don't think a person has to be self sufficient in the sense that it can hold a job, pay for an appartment, get its own food etc. I do think it needs to be able to survive outside of another person's body. See above. (fertilized egg, amount of time for survival, etc.) Not happiness, GOOD. The most GOOD and you have to be able to say why it is good. If I remember correctly, utilitarian theory deals solely with empirical evidence to prove the most happiness. Aristotle's virtue theory deals with the most good in a situation. Both use empirical evidence, but both "prove" morality/immorality using different reasoning. So...you tripped me up on that one by changing from utilitarian theory to virtue theory. Tsk tsk tsk. Using the DNA argument, my eggs would not be considered a part of my body because they do not have identical DNA (only half of my stuff), and a man's sperm would not be a part of his body. Sperm and eggs are not part of your body. BUT the eggs and the sperm individually will never become a sentient living being, or achieve viability. So, it is not a moral issue anymore than the tapeworm you referred to. (a tapeworm also could never become a person on its own) Plus, why is DNA the deciding factor? I never claimed that DNA was the deciding factor. I merely pointed out that the fetus isn't part of the woman's body. I consider her right to not be used as an incubator to be important. What gives her this right? Does the man have a right not to be used as a sperm donor? Does a woman have the right not to urinate? What right to breath does a woman have under twenty feet of water? People do not have rights over biological functions. Women ARE incubators, therefore they do not have the right (nor ability) to chose what their bodies can or cannot do. Rights are something you always have. If you have the right not to be an incubator, then you could decide to be an incubator with no outside interference. Also, you could will the baby away with you mind. Rights must involve choices, and must always be available to you, or else they are not rights. I won't get onto the "she could control her body by just not getting pregnant" bit, cause we all know there are situations that are not in a woman's control that can lead to pregnancy. They are WAY more common than any of us would like to think. You misunderstood where I was going with that. I said "Also women aren't actually in control of their bodies anyway, or else they could just control not getting pregnant in the first place." Meaning, if women actually had control over their body in the way they have control over their limbs, they could just "shut off" their reproductive cycle, and not worry about pregnancy in the first place. Sorry for the confusion, I should have elaborated. You're talking in circles here and I am getting a little dizzy . You most certainly can prove viability before abortion. Certain things are required for life, like functionning lungs, skin, heart, kidneys etc. Show me one 12 week fetus that was capable of surviving outside the womb and I will change my views, but you can't because it is impossible. I know that all the time and have no doubts. I won't be surprised if the age of viability changes with medical advances, but that's a ways off. So please, PROVE to me the point at which the fetus is viable. Do not tell me when it is not viable, tell me the earliest point at which it is viable. Tell me at what point you can ALWAYS remove the fetus from the mother and it will survive on its own. Particularly, keeping in mind that any living tissue can be removed from the body and survive for a (short) period of time (reattaching limbs, IVF, etc.) The twenties are when things get iffy. I work in an NICU and our cutoff for agressive treatment is generally 23+ weeks (no WAY would we agressively treat a 20 weeker and anyone who thinks we should is obviously not experienced in the area!). Even then, parents can choose to NOT opt for agressive treatment and let their child pass peacefully with them. I can't imagine those parents being called murderers. "Iffy" does not prove or disprove anything. If I jump out of a 30 story window, my chances of survival are iffy. It doesn't mean I won't survive, it just means that we are not sure. So if my intentions are survival, I should probably NOT jump out of the window (because it is "iffy" when doing so that I will continue to survive). And if my intentions are to be moral, I should probably NOT have an abortion (Because it is "iffy" when doing so that it wouldn't be the killing of a viable fetus, and therefore murder). Abortion absolutely can be right and wrong (depending on the circumstances). This is not a contradiction. I think it's wrong after viability (and many states and agencies do have restrictions on post viability abortions for this reason), because that is when a fetus is a person. Before that the fetus is not a person so it isn't possible to murder it. You don't think circumstances affect morality at all? Most of us would agree that murder is wrong, but is it morally wrong to kill in self defense? I would say no, so killing can be moral and immoral. That's just me. So rape then can also be right AND wrong, and is acceptable in some circumstances. What are these circumstances? Moral issues are always absolutes, or else they are not moral issues. Killing in self-defense by definition can not be murder (Unless you intend to kill them, in which case it isn't self defense anymore, is it?). There must be intent. Also, killing by itself is non-moral, since it is the intent that changes the moral polarity. Murder is a moral issue since it always involves willful killing of a person. If the fetus is a person, it is murder. If the fetus is a tissue, it is surgery. There is a difference. And no, circumstances do not have any affect on morality, for morality is absolute. Viability, individuality, independence... Whatever words we want to use to describe the ability of a fetus to survive outside of a woman's body. Since all three have very different meanings, it would probably be best to pick one for the sake of the argument. :) Ok. Your turn.

The part of your argument I find illogical is #2, the real heart of the argument. I don't think a fetus is a person before viability. People are INDEPENDENT living beings, a fetus isn't. Until it can live outside the womb, it is not an independent living being, so it isn't a person. It can BECOME a person, but it IS not. That's a big distinction. So, by your definition, a person is an independent human being. Anyone or anything that is not independent is not a person. If something/someone is not a person, then it would not be morally wrong to kill them. I do not consider fetuses to be able to live independently, but neither can newborn babies, toddlers, young children, quadriplegics, humans (not saying people right here because by your definition they are not people) with certain mental disabilities, some elderly, etc. By your definition, it would be morally acceptable to kill all of these people. Are you sure you want to stick with "independence" = personhood? If they are given the same protection, it opens a whole new can of worms which needs to be considered. Should embryos from IVF be all used or saved forever since discarding them is murder? By my argument, yes. Should birth control pills, depo, etc. be outlawed since they prevent implantation, causing murder? Yes again. Birth control which prevents the woman from ovulating would be acceptable though, since without ovulation there can be no conception. Should pregnant women be jailed if their lifestyle is not good enough, causing any harm to their fetuses (smoking, drinking, not eating dairy...)? This is an entirely different argument. Right now I am simply arguing that abortion is wrong. Are there any cases where abortion IS acceptable and why (to save a woman's life, in the case of gross deformity, incest, rape, etc)? No. Are we going to investigate every miscarriage as a possible murder? I don't know, I am just arguing about morality and immorality. The consequences of something being moral or immoral do not have anything to do with the argument itself. If something is wrong, then it's wrong...even if that makes things a pain in the butt for everyone else. Oh, the greatest good idea about simple happiness. It's about good. The best example is do we allow abortion to save a woman's life, even if we consider abortion murder because if we don't both the woman and the fetus will die? If you suspected that someone you knew was going to kill an innocent person, could you justify killing that person? Since it can never be known for certain that aborting the baby will increase the odds of survival for the mother or fetus, this is much the same as not knowing for sure in the example above. Or, my personal favorite would be what is the best way to decrease abortions in this country? I would argue in favor of better sexual education and birth control access, not legislation because it isn't practical. The results of declaring something immoral or not have no bearing on the argument. I am not arguing how to reduce abortion, or government regulation, or anything of that nature. I am saying that if abortion is immoral, we shouldn't do it. If it is not immoral, then we can. The logistics that come afterward have no effect of the argument itself. Also, all moral decisions are a pain in the butt, or at least require some kind of sacrifice. If your husband never cheated on you, but never had the opportunity, is he making a moral decision? No. Further, if he never cheated on you, but daily has opportunities, doesn't this indicate sacrifice on his part to remain moral? (And we know how men are...) Deontology is fun, but only works on empirical facts (like 1+1=2). Eek. You just contradicted yourself. There is no such thing as an empirical fact. Relative observations, not facts, are empirical. If something is empirical, it cannot be a fact. Deontology deals with explicit facts, not opinions. Your argument works on an underlying assumption, not necessarily a fact (that fetuses are people at all stages of gestation). For it to be a fact we would have to come up with the final binding definition of what makes a person and see if a fetus meets that definition. Okay, you do not like my definition...can you disprove that fetuses have a capacity to develop reason? Your definition (people are independent living beings) was easily disproved. Unless you think offing five years olds is morally sound, then independence then has nothing to do with whether someone is a person or not. My original argument still allowed for the chance that your definition of a person was different than mine. You still have to be able to prove the point in which the fetus becomes a person. The only point that can be proven a priori is the moment at which the DNA becomes unique (ie. Different from both parents). Your assumption in the anti-utilitarian argument is "women should be happy". Why? You'd have to come up with a reason. No I do not, because the whole concept of utilitarian theory is based upon the idea that "the outcome that results in the greatest amount of happiness is moral." If you use utilitarian theory to argue anything, you have to assume that happiness is the desired outcome for the situation you are arguing. Happiness has nothing to do with whether something is right or wrong. It might make me a heck of a lot happier to kill Mr. X, but that does not make it moral. According to utilitarian theory, it would be moral, as long as more people would be made happy by killing him than by not. My assumption to start the argument is that "women should have total control of their own bodies" therefore they are allowed to choose abortion. I can argue that assumption because women are sentient beings and no one should control a person's body other than that person. Your body is personal, not the property of someone else as in slavery and you have free will (that's why rape is immoral). If they aren't allowed total control of their own bodies, who controls them and where does it stop? But, I would like to point out that a fetus is definitely not part of the woman's body. If it was, then the DNA would be identical. The fetus is a foreign tissue being housed by the woman's uterus. The woman also does not have the right to remove her uterus (even though that technically IS part of her body) because to do so would kill the person inside, which would be immoral. Also women aren't actually in control of their bodies anyway, or else they could just control not getting pregnant in the first place. Do we get to force women to have natural childbirth because it is best for the fetus? Do we get to force women into cesareans? That's just rape of another form. The devil's in the details. When we argue in favor of beneficence and ignore the dangers of paternalism we're walking a tightrope. This seems to have little to do with the argument at hand... Again, this all just comes down to the question of personhood. Is a fetus a person and when? I argue at viability, because that's when it can live outside the womb. You might say at conception or implantation because that's when it has the potential to become a person. I'm not silly enough to know for sure that my pov is right, but it is the conclusion I have come to through the same process that you have. So, if viability is what makes a fetus a person (and not independence), then you must be able to prove at what point a fetus is viable, a not perform abortions after that point. Otherwise you would be killing a person, which I think we both agree is immoral. How do we prove such a thing? You cannot. If you take a baby at x gestation and say "it is not viable" and abort it, you kill it. You cannot prove whether that baby was viable or not, because with abortion, all viability is zero. It is a circular argument: "This fetus was not viable [because we killed it] therefore since it was not viable, killing it was moral." In order for viability to be an accurate gauge of personhood, you need to prove it's viability before you perform the abortion. You cannot remove the fetus in one piece, lay it on the table, and if it dies say "ok, it's not viable, lets put it back in and then perform the abortion." If you remove the fetus and lay it on a table and it survives...then I guess you send the patient home because killing the fetus would then be immoral because it is viable, and therefore a person. You cannot take an average gestation age for viability and use that as your guide, because not all fetuses become viable at x gestation. It is different for every fetus. If you assume that fetus A is not viable because it has reached x gestation and abort it, you are potentially killing a person (by your definition) if indeed the fetus was viable at x gestation. Using viability as your guide is impossible, because there is no way of proving viability without potentially killing the fetus. My "Stedman's Medical Dictionary" says viability is:" capability of living; the state of being viable, usually connotes a fetus that has reached five hundred grams in weight and twenty gestational weeks." Note the use of the word usually. This means: cannot be known all the time. Also, twenty gestational weeks is not the entire term of gestation, there are twenty additional weeks of gestation in which abortion must be wrong, by your definition. This makes your argument a contradiction, since abortion can either be right, or abortion can be wrong. It cannot be both. OK, wait. I think you edited funny and my quote of yours came out funny. So in case it isn't clear, I think a fetus becomes a person at a certain point (viability) and isn't a person from the beginning since I consider a person to be an independent living human being. So is it viability or independence? It has to be one or the other, since to be both would be self-contradictory. Sorry if my quote came out funny. Don't mean to be confusing, just trying to save space... (Edited to correct embarrassing typo.)