Another argument against abortion legalization

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 14
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
Let’s say there are 2 Siamese twins.  One of the twins hates being a Siamese twin because of the lifelong pain associated with being a Siamese twin (pregnancy, but for your whole life), and doesn’t think it’s his fault he is in this situation (pregnancy from rape).  Let’s say he decides to kill his twin to make his life easier (let’s say he does this in a way that doesn’t harm him but only kills his twin).

Would we allow that?  Or would we call it murder?  I think pretty much everyone would call it murder.

So why should we treat a pregnant female any different?  If the Siamese twin is not allowed to exercise his bodily autonomy by killing his twin, why should a pregnant female be any different?
#2
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
Pregnant women have rights and the unborn do not and should not have rights.

There was a case similar to this in the U.K. where one conjoined twin had a high chance of survival if separated, while the other would certainly die. But not separating them would have them both die within six months. The Catholic parents wanted to let nature take its course and allow both kids to die, but the court stepped in and ruled in favor of separation so one twin lived. 

I'm curious if people think the doctor is a murderer for saving the only girl's life that could have survived between them. Tough case. 

Topic's author
#3
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Danielle
Pregnant women have rights and the unborn do not and should not have rights.
Why not?  There are 2 reasons you may state:

1) Unborn fetuses aren’t human.  If this is what you believe, do you support smash and dash?  It would be okay if a fetus wasn’t a human being.
2) Bodily autonomy is more valuable than a human’s right to life.  If this is what you believe, do you support the right of a Siamese twin to kill their twin in the name of bodily autonomy?  If that would be nuts, it is also nuts to claim that a female should be allowed an abortion if indeed a fetus is a human being. If you don’t think a fetus is a human being, you might want to check bullet point 1.

There was a case similar to this in the U.K. where one conjoined twin had a high chance of survival if separated, while the other would certainly die. But not separating them would have them both die within six months. The Catholic parents wanted to let nature take its course and allow both kids to die, but the court stepped in and ruled in favor of separation so one twin lived.
This is not what I’m referring too.  I’m referring to 2 healthy Siamese twins and one of them wants to kill their twin because of how hard it is being a Siamese twin.  Would you allow that?  If you would, that’s crazy.  If you wouldn’t, how is it any different from an abortion if a fetus is a human being?
#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Let's say there are two Siamese twins.
Sounds logical to me.

Maybe even a tad obvious.



Let's say.
Let's say that foetuses are alien parasites from the planet deadbeat.

That's the beauty of hypothesis.


Though it could reasonably be argued, that as a foetus does not share the  DNA of the host mother, then technically it is an alien parasite.

Therefore the mother should have the right to choose whether or not her body can be used to nurture an alien invader.
#5
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
In the law we make distinctions when it comes to rights. Animals don't have the same rights as humans. Among humans,  immigrants don't have the same rights as citizens; children don't have the same rights as adults; convicts and suspected criminals don't have the same rights as someone with a clean record; the mentally ill or cognitively impaired don't have the same rights as a neurotypical person, etc. 

Despite the fact that fetuses are living human beings, they should not have the same rights as born persons. There is a difference in status between people that are born because they do not rely on inhabiting another person's body to live. In the case of conjoined twins, both of them are born so both have the right to not have their bodies violated. 

#6
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
I have to wonder if a certain group of people aren't mentally handicapped. Because they're constantly comparing apples and oranges like if you let gays marry people will marry their toaster. Here it's let's equate killing a living human being, with rights, to one that isn't even born yet. 
Topic's author
#7
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Therefore the mother should have the right to choose whether or not her body can be used to nurture an alien invader.
Whether or not one is from someplace else has no relevance.  Otherwise, it would justify deportations (which I also oppose).  An invasion requires a military and a fetus isn’t a military.  Would you call one Siamese twin an invader of the other’s body?
Topic's author
#8
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Danielle
In the law we make distinctions when it comes to rights. 
Every distinction has to be justified by non arbitrary means.

Among humans,  immigrants don't have the same rights as citizens
I disagree with this btw.  And in America, documented immigrants have the same rights the native born do.

Despite the fact that fetuses are living human beings, they should not have the same rights as born persons.
Why?

There is a difference in status between people that are born because they do not rely on inhabiting another person's body to live. In the case of conjoined twins, both of them are born so both have the right to not have their bodies violated.
Conjoined twins rely on the other person’s body to live.  This does not mean it is acceptable for one twin to murder the other on the grounds of bodily autonomy.  Why does being born matter?  Both the fetus and the twin is dependent on someone else for their survival.  If it’s acceptable to kill one, it’s acceptable to kill the other and vice versa.  I don’t think it’s acceptable to kill either.
#9
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
OK.

So I advise that you read your dictionary more.

I'm not going to explain.
#10
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
And in America, documented immigrants have the same rights the native born do.
Correct. We give birthright citizenship to those BORN in America. 


Why?
For one thing the unborn, especially early in pregnancy, have zero cognitive function at all whatsoever. Why don't animals have the same rights as humans? Because they are not cognitively equivalent to neurotypical humans. And neither are the unborn.

Now I presume your next statement will be something along the lines of "babies and toddlers don't have the same cognitive status as  older humans" and that's true. But toddlers and babies are no longer physically inhabiting someone else's body, and we generally consider killing those outside the womb murder. It is not okay to kill a baby or anyone outside the womb because someone else will presumably take care of the baby that is born; the baby is no longer reliant on someone else to survive that's unwilling to host it. 

One fundamental role of government is to manage competing interests: the rights of the individual vs. the rights of others. The unborn should not have a right to physically inhabit another person's body against their will, and the government has no business prosecuting women or doctors on behalf of the unborn that have no rights. The unborn have no right to vote, no right to own property, no right to due process, no right to anything at all so why would they have the right to live inside of someone else's body against that person's will? 

Honestly I don't anticipate the conversation getting much more interesting if you simply disagree. I highly doubt you're interested in changing your mind so the convo may not be fruitful. 



Conjoined twins rely on the other person’s body to live. This does not mean it is acceptable for one twin to murder the other on the grounds of bodily autonomy.  Why does being born matter? 

I just explained. 
#11
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Animals don't have the same rights as humans.
In some states, Animals have more rights than an 8 month old human fetus.
#12
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Good. Dogs are a lot cuter than human fetuses. 
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
George Carlin says dogs are cuter than cats because they have eyebrows.
Topic's author
#14
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Danielle
Correct. We give birthright citizenship to those BORNin America. 
That’s because compared to foreigners, Americans are free speech absolutists and if we let foreigners vote without citizenship, it leads to them voting for policies so bad it causes us all to have to flee America (or at least a lot of us).

For one thing the unborn, especially early in pregnancy, have zero cognitive function at all whatsoever. Why don't animals have the same rights as humans? Because they are not cognitively equivalent to neurotypical humans. And neither are the unborn. 
This is the, “fetuses don’t deserve mandated protection” argument.  If this is what you believe, do you support a man’s right to ditch the fetus he created?  After all, if the fetus has no cognitive ability, it doesn’t matter if the guy wants to smash and dash.  You might say the female has to sacrifice her body, but then this goes back to the Conjoined twin argument.  You then might say that the fetus isn’t the same as a conjoined twin, and we are going in circles.

But toddlers and babies are no longer physically inhabiting someone else's body, and we generally consider killing those outside the womb murder. It is not okay to kill a baby or anyone outside the womb because someone else will presumably take care of the baby that is born; the baby is no longer reliant on someone else to survive that's unwilling to host it.
Conjoined twins rely on each other’s body.  This doesn’t give one the right to kill the other. You may say they are sentient and a fetus isn’t, but that allows smash and dash if a fetus isn’t a human being worthy of protection because of lack of intelligence.  And we are going back in circles.

I highly doubt you're interested in changing your mind so the convo may not be fruitful.
I would say I’m more willing to change my mind than you are.  There have been times when I defended abortion up until the moment of birth, and they have been frequent.  That’s just not what I believe now.  Have there ever been times when you were against abortion?  If not, your more likely the close minded one than me.