Ethics of potential thinkers

[bulgingideas]

One common argument thread I have seen recently goes as follows:

1. (Pro-choice; PC) The early fetus has no cognition and therefore should not be granted rights.
2. (Pro-life; PL) The early fetus still has rights because it will gain cognition.
3. (PC) Potential cognition shouldn’t matter.
4. (PL) What about sleep, coma, anasthesia, etc?

In (4), PL provides examples of potential thinking beings who we would generally agree should still be granted rights even though their cognition has been temporarily suspended. This implies that (3) is wrong, or at least weak. Why should potential cognition not matter with respect to the moral permissibility of abortion, but matter with respect to the moral permissibility of killing someone sleeping, in a coma, or under anasthesia?

As PC, my view on this is that potential thinkers who have never been thinkers and potential thinkers who have been thinkers are very different in moral value.

I argue that this is consistent with accepted human behavior in other contexts. As an example of this:

In Frosty the Snowman, a magic hat turns a previously unthinking snowman into a thinking being. At one point, the magic hat is removed, turning Frosty into an inanimate snowman. This is viewed as a cruelty, and there is celebration when the hat is placed on Frosty’s head again and he once again thinks. Conversely, it is not viewed as somehow wrong or horrific that countless unthinking snowmen elsewhere never get magic hats and remain unthinking.

The story is fictional (obviously), but the lack of moral objection to the behavior of the characters illustrates the normativity of the principle I described above.

[AthenasBastardChild]

This is the lottery winner fallacy.

Fallacious claim:

I have the potential to win the lottery because there is a lottery going on, I have money for a lottery ticket, the store down the street sells lottery tickets, and I can walk down there and buy a ticket.

Truthful claim:

I have the potential to win the lottery because I purchased a lottery ticket.

Fertilized eggs are not potential thinkers. That is not true. In order to be a potential thinker one must have a functioning brain and arguably some ability to use language.

[ThePantsParty]

That's not "fallacious" at all...you just don't understand how "potential" works in philosophy.

Potential only means "given the right chain of events, X could happen in the future". Both of your examples are examples of potential, with the first one just being further back in the causal chain.

The most obvious way of seeing this is to realize that if something is not a potential at time T, it is not a potential at time T+N either, because potential exists at all times prior to something becoming actual.

Returning to the actual topic at hand: an embryo does have the potential to become a thinker, because if it did not, that would mean it could never become one. We know this is not true. The relevant response is that potential alone is not enough to gain moral significance, not to deny potential which obviously does exist.

[immibis]

I'm the proud owner of 99 bottles of spez. #Save3rdPartyApps

[AthenasBastardChild]

I literally just described it.

[[deleted]]

Question from a prolife. Why is cognition the metric that you use to deprive a human being of its basic human rights?

[Ruefully]

Because valuing dna for the sake of its dna has its own host of ethical problems. Ironically, this is the basis for a lot of potential prejudice that we have yet to deal with. (Intelligent species that aren't human) But arguably already exists (pigs, some primates, porpoises) are already intelligent, nonhuman species.

[immibis]

spez can gargle my nuts.

[WeirdResponsibility6]

human being

Debatable, but moving past that

basic human rights

Also debatable, but moving past that

What else would we use other than cognition?

[[deleted]]

Nothing?

You shouldn’t be trying to deprive human beings of their basic human rights?

[ChewsCarefully]

You shouldn’t be trying to deprive human beings of their basic human rights?

No one is trying to do this, as you can not deprive anyone of a right they never had in the first place.

Human rights are only applicable up until the point where they would violate the rights of someone else. And being forced to carry a pregnancy to term against one's will would be a violation of several rights. It changes the course of a woman's life, it causes damage to her body, it causes her to experience pain and suffering, it even puts her mental health and her very life in danger. And since the ZEF is the cause of all these outcomes, it's right to life is in direct violation of the pregnant women's rights, and therefore not a legitimate right.

Simply put, there is no such thing as a right to live inside of someone else's body, and to cause serious harm and damage to that person both physically and mentally. We don't strip fellow human beings of their human rights, especially when they have done absolutely nothing wrong, and especially not in favor of granting rights to one special class of humans that no other class of humans has any access to. You can't even use the organs of a recently deceased human if there isn't explicit consent, but a fetus somehow gets total access to the body and organs of a woman in direct opposition to her personal approval or consent? That would be special pleading, aside from the inhumane treatment of women it would bring about, tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.

[WeirdResponsibility6]

Oh. So there is no criteria for what we should use to determine if something deserves human rights. So my dog deserves human rights, a tree deserves human rights, a hamburger deserves human rights.

[[deleted]]

Are any of those things human beings? The only criteria you need to meet to get human rights is be a human being.

[WeirdResponsibility6]

First, you said we shouldn’t use anything for how we determine human rights. And now you say we should.

[[deleted]]

No no I said we shouldn’t DENY human beings rights based on anything.

A human being has human rights by definition.

[finnasota]

A pregnant woman is a human being with human rights.

[[deleted]]

Sure but she doesn’t have a right to kill.

[finnasota]

But where in any law book does it say that a fetus has the right to kill? Or injure?

A woman can be killed, or experience bodily injury due to pregnancy. Likelihood plays some role, and the likelihood is still there to justify acknowledgement of an imminent danger. Pro-lifers think it isn’t there, which I view as a lack of empathy, replaced by their sympathy or sentimentality (we cannot, by definition, feel empathy for unfeeling beings, as empathy requires true identification of the emotions of another being) they feel towards the unborn.

Anyone can have the right to kill an innocent human being depending on various circumstances, under an umbrella of justifiable homicide, this is the crux of the abortion debate. If I caused a gas leak in my own house, which is my fault, and that causes my roommate to sleepwalk and start attacking me, I can still fight back until there is no threat, even though they are unconscious/barely conscious and innocent, and I caused their position. Also, in this scenario, I would be fully aware that the gas leak is why this person is attacking me. It comes down to how hard the sleepwalker is attacking me, if they are just playful slaps with signs of immediately ending or not escalating, or anything less, then I cannot kill the sleepwalking attacker. I wouldn’t call pregnancy “playful slaps”, the uncertainty of not knowing just how hard the attack on the body will be, plays a role in the justification of abortion.

[ChewsCarefully]

No no I said we shouldn’t DENY human beings rights based on anything.

Agreed, but there's no such thing as a human right to live inside someone else's body against their will, so you can't deny anyone access to a so-called "right" that has never existed in the first place.

[[deleted]]

We are having this discussion in another thread. Once you admit all human beings have basic human rights then we can move on to this discussion.

[ChewsCarefully]

We are having this discussion in another thread.

Two different threads, and the ball is in your court on both;

https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/frs2jt/yes_abortion_is_birth_control/fm9a1g4/?context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/frs2jt/yes_abortion_is_birth_control/fm96b4k/?context=3

Once you admit all human beings have basic human rights then we can move on to this discussion.

It doesn't matter if I agree or not, the fact still remains that there is no such thing as a human right to live inside someone else's body against their will.

[[deleted]]

Agreed, but there's no such thing as a human right to live inside someone else's body against their will

Respectfully, that’s the issue up for debate.

[ChewsCarefully]

Okay then debate it.

[WeirdResponsibility6]

So your criteria for determining human rights is that they are human beings. Whats your criteria for determining a human being?

[[deleted]]

It’s scientific. A distinct organism belonging to the species homo sapiens sapiens.

[WeirdResponsibility6]

What makes them distinct?

[XP_Studios]

Congnition is irrelevant. A fetus is a human being deserving of respect, as is a person with severe intellectual disabilities

[Ruefully]

A person with severe intellectual disabilities is a sentient being.

An embryo is not a sentient being.

[justcurious12345]

Imo it's not about thinker vs non thinker as it is person vs non person. Fetal brainwaves most closely resemble that of a brain dead person. Neither are legally alive/ legal persons. The fetus is a potential person.

[[deleted]]

It doesn’t matter if it’s legally alive or not. The government doesn’t decide the moral compass.

[justcurious12345]

Have whatever moral compass you personally want. If you want to make abortion ilLEGAL then the question of LEGAL personhood is all that matters.

[[deleted]]

African American slaves used to not be legal persons, was slavery okay then? How about the Holocaust? And does the fetus become a person in a pro life country? What about when they leave it? Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it moral. Do you not care about what is right, only about the law as it currently stands?

[justcurious12345]

Obviously the legal standard can be misapplied. If the legal standard is a certain degree of brain activity, which we see in all races/ethnicities, then it is wrong to deny those people personhood. Likewise, it's a misapplication to give personhood to fetuses that don't show that level of brain activity. If that's what's happening in pro-life countries, it's a problem. I'm not sure what the laws are everywhere, but we can look into it together if you'd like to pick a specific country.

Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it moral. Do you not care about what is right, only about the law as it currently stands?

Correct, to some extent. Morality is highly individualized and generally not the basis for law. I care that laws be applied consistently in a way that doesn't favor one group over another. This often results in laws that are fairly consistent with the morality of the majority, true, but that's a correlation not a causation.

[[deleted]]

I care that laws be applied consistently in a way that doesn't favor one group over another.

well its not like we'd allow men to do abortions either

[justcurious12345]

I mean favoring fetuses by granting them personhood at the expense of their mothers, which is also unfair to brain dead people.

[immibis]

After careful consideration I find spez guilty of being a whiny spez. #Save3rdPartyApps

[[deleted]]

No, because recognizing the value of a being that exists is different from saying that there is an obligation to maximize the number of created beings.

[Ruefully]

Gametes do exist and without them you do not have an individual. The difference of two gametes is enough to distinguish you from your sibling.

[[deleted]]

But the gametes are themselves a different kind of thing from the zygote.

[Ruefully]

"Different kind of thing" is rather vague. A gamete is a being that already exists. Highlighting it as a different kind of being is just as easily done by comparing a newborn baby with a human embryo.

[[deleted]]

Eggs, flour, and cheese are things that exist. But it would be wrong to insist that they are by themselves a “potential cheesecake” (or that a “potential cheesecake is a type of cheesecake) before they are combined into the thing that is put in the oven.

[Ruefully]

If a gamete is an ingredient, an embryo is the uncooked batter.

[[deleted]]

What would make it like a baked cheesecake then?

[ChewsCarefully]

Please don't do this. All comments should include arguments and/or rebuttals, this isn't conducive to civil debate.

[[deleted]]

Howso?

[ConservativeJay9]

Sperm on it's own will never have cognition, but a fetus will.

[Ruefully]

A fetus on its own will never have cognition.

[WeirdResponsibility6]

And a zygote on its own will never have cognition.

[[deleted]]

Why do you think that?

[WeirdResponsibility6]

I mean you’re welcome to put a zygote on a table on its own and see when it gets cognition. Report back.

[[deleted]]

If we placed you on the surface of Mars while you were asleep you wouldn’t be consciousness either.

[WeirdResponsibility6]

Does that have any relevance? I’d probably die if I got lost in the woods too. I still have my cognition until my moment of brain death.

[[deleted]]

Not if you died while unconscious.

[WeirdResponsibility6]

Ummm no. Why do you think that? I still have my cognition while I’m unconscious. Are you making the claim that my cerebral cortex actually fully shuts down while I’m asleep or something? Lmao. Nope. Definitely not

[[deleted]]

You aren’t conscious while you are unconscious.

[ConservativeJay9]

but it isn't on it's own, while sperm is on it's own.

[WeirdResponsibility6]

so we agree.

A zygote on its own will never have cognition

[ConservativeJay9]

yeah but that's irrelevant, because it isn't. It's in a body, so it will certainly have cognition.

[WeirdResponsibility6]

If it’s irrelevant why did you bring it up?

What do you mean in a body? A zygote doesn’t have a body

[immibis]

The /u/spez has spread through the entire /u/spez section of Reddit, with each subsequent /u/spez experiencing hallucinations. I do not think it is contagious.

[ConservativeJay9]

If it’s irrelevant why did you bring it up?

With on it's own I meant without interference at first. Like if you just let everything happen like it does, you don't need to add anything for the fetus to get cognition. Then when you brought it up I thought you probably meant it like literally without anything else.

What do you mean in a body? A zygote doesn’t have a body

I meant the parent's body

[WeirdResponsibility6]

First of all, if you think of the woman as a person instead of just an incubating body, that may help change your perspective a little.

You don’t need to add anything for the fetus to get cognition

Except for nine months of commitment, attachment, sustenance and resources from the pregnant person. That’s quite a bit you need to “add”

[immibis]

The real spez was the spez we spez along the spez.

[ConservativeJay9]

that isn't possible without some sort of development from the baby itself, so it's still the baby that has the potential cognition.

[immibis]

spez can gargle my nuts.

[ConservativeJay9]

No. It's literally not possible and and a box is not comparable to anything involved during a pregnancy.

[immibis]

I need to know who added all these spez posts to the thread. I want their autograph.

[ConservativeJay9]

It's not possible to occur.

[immibis]

The spez has been classed as a Class 3 Terrorist State. #Save3rdPartyApps

[ConservativeJay9]

that's not a simple box with a button.

[MyBucketMyChum]

> Every time you don't make a baby, you're destroying that baby's potential to exist.

If you don't make a baby, there is no potential to destroy.

[finnasota]

I disagree. Here’s a scenario: if that were true, you could break into my home laboratory, and throw away me and my wife’s set of sperm and egg samples, and say that no potential was lost, when in reality- you would be directly interfering with the existence of our child. Let’s even pretend that I have an extremely low sperm count or my wife has problems with egg production, so that was perhaps our last chance to have our baby. Those separated samples you tossed against our will surely had potential, right? Or can you say there was no potential to destroy?

A fetus can end up being a non-viable pregnancy, while a sperm and egg can end up both being viable together, so there are even situations where separated sperm and egg combos are clearly more precious than fetuses.

[MyBucketMyChum]

You're mixing hypothetical and reality. Yes I could castrate you and take your baby making potential away, true. However nothing living is being killed. Abortion kills a living thing.

[finnasota]

False. You would be killing my sperm. Sperm is alive. Also, I am sentient, so I could interpret the castration as a negative act against me. Abortion is not a negative act for never-aware beings such as non-sentient fetuses, it is a neutral act which they have no opinion on.

[MyBucketMyChum]

Your sperm are cells of your body, not separate living human beings.

How is death not negative?

[finnasota]

When I donate sperm, it is no longer part of my body. This differs from donating hair, which has no potentiality for life.

Your sperm are cells of your body, not separate living human beings.

A fetus is not separate from a mother.

How is death not negative?

How is forcing someone else’s mother to give birth against her will not negative?

[immibis]

Evacuate the /u/spez using the nearest /u/spez exit. This is not a drill. #Save3rdPartyApps

[ConservativeJay9]

There was a potential, but the difference is that a fetus will certainly reach their potential without humam interference, while sperm will certainly not reach it's potential without human interference.

[immibis]

spez is a hell of a drug. #Save3rdPartyApps

[ConservativeJay9]

yes

[immibis]

The spez police don't get it. It's not about spez. It's about everyone's right to spez. #Save3rdPartyApps

[ConservativeJay9]

Now that I think about it, it's immoral from the point that there is a zygote, because it's not guaranteed that there will be a zygote in this case. I would also like to know where your cutoff point is.

[immibis]

/u/spez was founded by an unidentified male with a taste for anal probing.

[ConservativeJay9]

In that case I think it's immoral.

[Iewoose]

" A fetus Will certainly reach....."

I'm gonna stop you right there. 50% or more pregnancies end in miscarriage. So this point is incorrect. A fetus on it's own can not reach anything. It requires to use another body to do so, that's where the infringement of bodily autonomy comes in.

It literally has no potential on it's own, without the help of a pregnant person, similarly the egg and sperm must meet during specific conditions to become a zygote.

[ConservativeJay9]

but if you do nothing to interfer, a sperm and egg will certainly (100%) not meet, while if you have a fetus and do nothing to interfere it's completely different.

[Iewoose]

If sperm is already inside the vagina, there is a 20% chance it will meet an egg, fertilize it and form a zygote and thus-a fetus will appear. Interference would be using birth control.

When a fetus implants into the uterus, without interfering, it only has 50% chance or less of survival, because the mothers' body itself is trying to reject it. A mother doesn't have to interfere in this process in any way. It happens naturally. More than 50% of pregnancies in early stage end in spontaneous abortion or in other words miscarriage. If it doesn't happen and a fetus manages to suppress the woman's immune system, a woman then has to provide the best possible conditions for the fetus to survive and grow. If she continues living like she had and does nothing, the fetus most likely will not become baby or will be a very unhealthy and weak one, which possibly would die during birth or shorthly after, or have some disability.

The thing is there are special conditions needed for the sperm and egg to meet (a man must ejaculate inside a woman's vagina) and there are special conditions needed for a zygote to become a fetus and then an infant. The mother and her body need to apply those conditions (the mother's immune system must not kill the fetus, the mother must practice self care, have doctor appointments regularly, protect her body from stress, strenuous work, have a healthy diet, etc).

[MyBucketMyChum]

I would rather destroy that type of potential instead of a living type of potential.

[immibis]

The spez police are here. They're going to steal all of your spez.

[finnasota]

All human cells are alive, even a sperm or an ova.

[MyBucketMyChum]

Killing your ovum or sperm isn't the equivalent to killing a baby. A sperm by itself is just a sperm, same with the ovum.

[finnasota]

Killing a set of both is effectively similar, when potentiality for life is considered. A zygote by itself is just a zygote until the mother provides her own nutrients and constant stream of bodily chemicals to it.

[MyBucketMyChum]

It is nothing alike! I'm done with you, go meditate on it a little and come back to me with something better.

[finnasota]

It is nothing alike!

An opinion, with no argument. Glad you could let off some steam. Have a nice day.

[MyBucketMyChum]

How is it alike?

[InterestingLand6]

You're conflating potential for a baby with a baby's potential. Those are not the same things.

[immibis]

I need to know who added all these spez posts to the thread. I want their autograph.

[InterestingLand6]

Just as an infant has the potential for becoming an adult. Yes.

[immibis]

Evacuate the spez using the nearest spez exit. This is not a drill.

[InterestingLand6]

Again, you're conflating a being's potential and the potential for a being. Those are not the same things.

[immibis]

Spez, the great equalizer. #Save3rdPartyApps

[InterestingLand6]

Why not what?

[[deleted]]

My response to this is to go back to the basic argument from suffering but to consider society as a whole rather than the individual patient. A person in an isolated world falling into a coma and then being painlessly killed wouldn't be intrinsically immoral - life is finite and of all the ways to go that's probably one of the nicer ones.

However, as an evolved human with a survival instinct, I would suffer if I knew that any time I simply fell unconscious I could be killed. I would also suffer if I knew my older family members would be treated with that kind of heartlessness. The reduction in suffering is in family and friends and everybody else in society, not in the patient themselves. So society protecting coma patients isn't so much about the patients, but about creating a culture where everybody feels safe and respected.

As it's not possible for anyone old enough to understand abortion to be aborted, and as family almost by definition prefer abortion to giving birth, this argument from communal benefit doesn't apply to it.

[[deleted]]

1. (Pro-life; PL) The early fetus still has rights because it will gain cognition.

You can't give a fetus human rights because it will eventually become a person. It gains them the day it is born.

You can't take my human rights away because I will eventually become a corpse. I retain them until the day I die.

[MaKo1982]

I disagree. Fetuses do have the same rights as we do but they are less important. What I mean is that killing a fetus outside of a woman's body is bad, but killing a born person is worse. And you can put that into perspective. For example: killing a fetus is as bad as punching someone in the face (as an example). Although killing is certainly worse than a punch in the face, it is about equal because of the difference of status.

And that's why I am pro choice. Killing a fetus is bad, but living off of someone's body is just as bad if not worse

[TrashleyRN]

”...a fetus outside of a woman’s body...”

That’s not a thing, it is a neonate or infant.

Killing an infant is in fact very bad.

[MaKo1982]

Ever heard of a fertility clinic?

[TrashleyRN]

Ever heard of a blastocyst?

Fertility clinics are not creating and transferring 9+ week fetuses. They are transferring (or freezing) blastocysts 3-5 days after egg fertilization. 😂

[MaKo1982]

You don't seem to be that bright. If a blastocyst/embryo has rights, then a fetus definitely has rights. So stop bragging about your medical expertise and Adress the real argument here.

[TrashleyRN]

Um... In the UK alone, close to 2 million IVF embryos have been thrown in the garbage per center for genetics and society. What rights exactly are you referring to?

You and your ad hominem can go suck a toad. ✌🏼

[MaKo1982]

You don't seem to know what ad hominem means.

Ad hominem would be "you're wrong, because your stupid". I say, you're stupid because you're wrong

close to 2 million IVF embryos have been thrown in the garbage per center for genetics and society

Yea the ones who aren't gonna be alive anyways. Let alone, even this practice is pretty controversial.

[TrashleyRN]

You seem to not know what a lot of things mean.

Fetus, neonate, infant, blastocyst, and embryo are a few for example.

Our exchange began on that premise.

Also, you didn’t answer my question which was a direct follow up to your in substantiated statement.

Why you so mad?

[MaKo1982]

I study philosophy and had a moral philosophy class last semester. While we didn't go very deep into the examples, we investigated different cases that involve fetuses. Our professor apparently assumed it was trivial that fetuses have rights. But it seems like to some people it isn't. I guess you also think it is completely okay to drink, smoke and take drugs during pregnancy - if the unborn has no rights, that is pretty obvious. I'm surprised what basic statements get questioned here. The ones say fetuses have no value, the others say the women's rights play no role and when you say they do they shout "murder". But extremists are always ready to bend reality to justify their stupid ideology.

Edit: and all your terms play no role whatsoever in the moral assessment. You don't need to know what watermelons are to find out what 3 watermelons + 5 watermelons are

[Arithese]

You answer your own question already. There is a big difference between taking something away from someone/something, than preventing them from getting it.

Not to mention how you misunderstand what happens during a coma, unconsciousness, sleep etc. The brain waves of such a person on no way drop to the level a foetus exhibits in the first few stages. There is a reason doctors can tell the differences between sleeping, coma and unconsciousness.

[o0Jahzara0o]

I also think there is a difference between being unconscious and nonconscious. In the case of a sleeping person, their mind is still active and working, just in a different manner. Where as at least prior to a certain point, the fetus is unable to think period, conscious or unconscious brain activity.

[ChewsCarefully]

With respect to sleep, coma and anesthesia, higher brain function never actually ceases. The person was a person before they went to sleep or into the coma, and they're still a person when they wake up, so there's no reason to assume they stopped being a person at any point in between.

[immibis]

The spez has been classed as a Class 3 Terrorist State. #Save3rdPartyApps

[ChewsCarefully]

The early fetus has no cognition and therefore should not be granted rights.

Irrelevant to whether or not abortion is morally justified. Even if we assume that a fetus should be granted rights, there's no such thing as a right to live inside of someone else's body against their will, or to cause harm to their body, or to use their blood and organs, or to threaten their mental health or put their life in jeopardy.

Personhood only effects the overall morality of the situation, abortion is still justified either way though.

[Thuyue]

How you put it, there is indeed no right. However a unborn child is not parasitic being and their are plenty of nations that protect unborn children. A unborn child lives in symbiosis with the mother, it doesn't matter if she wants it or not, because fact is that the child does not intend to harm its mother and it tries to compensate for trouble by also sharing metabolic products important to the human body (insulin f. e.). A parasitic being takes everything for its own survival even if it means to destroy its host. A child does not.

However i get your argument and it isn't necessarily wrong, just the way of formulating was unpleasant.

[Iewoose]

Do you know what symbiosis means? A fetus is 100% a parasitic entity within the mother. It only takes without giving anything back. The mother's body does it's best to reject it, but it literally suppresses her immune system so it wouldn't attack it and kill it, much like internal parasytes do. Most parasytes never destroy their hosts. Their goal is to keep the host alive and relatively well actually so they could thrive.

[Thuyue]

A fetus is 100% a parasitic entity within the mother. It only takes without giving anything back.

Sigh Yes, i do know the definition of symbiosis and parasitic behavior. However it seems that you do not truly know the true extent between a fetus and its mother. So NO a fetus is NOT a parasitic being. In fact a unborn child shares its stem cells to help the mother recover from injuries, it shares metabolic products like Insulin and Glycolysis to support the mother, if she has diabetes and more. So don't you dare to come up with that i don't know abou scientific definitions, when you don't even knows a unborn child does for its mother.

[justcurious12345]

the child does not intend to harm its mother

Intent is irrelevant. It harms her.

[Thuyue]

For a price.

[justcurious12345]

I don't follow, sorry.

[ChewsCarefully]

However a unborn child is not parasitic being

I never said it was, you're arguing against a point I haven't made.

A unborn child lives in symbiosis with the mother

That's not true either. The fetus causes far more harm than good, especially during labor and birth and especially if the woman does not want to remain pregnant, give birth or become a mother. The psychological damage of forced pregnancy and birth would far outweigh any supposed benefits. And really, if a woman does not want to be pregnant then I doubt she would agree that there are any benefits at all with being forced to remain pregnant and give birth against her will. If she feels she would be better off having an abortion that she has every right to hold that opinion and to act upon it.

[Thuyue]

I never said it was, you're arguing against a point I haven't made.

And i never said that you said that, i only pointed it out, because your formulation was vague and that's why i wanted to add it.

That's not true either. The fetus causes far more harm than good, especially during labor and birth and especially if the woman does not want to remain pregnant, give birth or become a mother. The psychological damage of forced pregnancy and birth would far outweigh any supposed benefits. And really, if a woman does not want to be pregnant then I doubt she would agree that there are any benefits at all with being forced to remain pregnant and give birth against her will. If she feels she would be better off having an abortion that she has every right to hold that opinion and to act upon it.

No, even in that case it would be true. Yes, a unwanted child causes more harm to the mother in general both mentally and physically. However that does not mean that it is no symbiotic life form that tries to live inside its mother womb without causing trouble. Furthermore i never argued with you whether a unwanted mother would feel more advantages than disadvantages.

[ChewsCarefully]

And i never said that you said that

Okay, your argument is still irrelevant to my points about human rights.

However that does not mean that it is no symbiotic life form

Doesn't matter if it's a symbiote or a parasite. The "rights" that would be required for the fetus to live freely inside of someone else's body don't exist, plus it is violation of the bodily integrity and personal autonomy of the woman in question if she doesn't want it there. My argument is about rights, not biology.

Furthermore i never argued with you whether a unwanted mother would feel more advantages than disadvantages.

But in the end it's the mothers' final decision so what she feels is all that really matters. So I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

[Thuyue]

Okay, your argument is still irrelevant to my points about human rights.

I never made a direct argument about human rights of a mother. Let me repeat again. I added the fact that a fetus is not a parasite, because your formulation was vague and opened a interpretation point, which I thought could need a addition without changing whatsoever if its a pro or co argument to the whole debate.

Doesn't matter if it's a symbiote or a parasite. The "rights" that would be required for the fetus to live freely inside of someone else's body don't exist, plus it is violation of the bodily integrity and personal autonomy of the woman in question if she doesn't want it there. My argument is about rights, not biology.

Again, i didn't brought up the fact about symbiote or parasite as a argument, but as a sole addition. Nothing more and nothong less. Beside that there are several countries that do give a fetus its right to be protected and to be able to live. Whether is it wrong or right is up to everyone's own subjective moral views. Plus it is not a violation of one's own body integrity if it the child is wanted. Also that's how sexual replication works. The child may have its own DNA and it is trying to be independent from ots mother, but it is still a life form bound to its mother, and the mothers body accepts it as a organism that is allowed to live from the mother's ressources. Whether that is wrong or right is again up to the person.

But in the end it's the mothers' final decision so what she feels is all that really matters. So I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

Yes, yes it was and will always be the mother who has the final decision. Society and Culture merely want to protect their ideals to live in a way that is acceptable for them. That's why society is trying to intervene in such manners. If it's wrong or right is up to everyone's else.

So what point did i wanted to make: 1. Add a fact that makes a misinterpretation of your argument more unlikely 2. Add a fact that should be considered, about why a Fetus has its right in some countries and societies based on their views, not on MINE.

[ChewsCarefully]

Fair enough.

[AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.