Is personhood relevant to abortion? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Is personhood relevant to abortion?

Debate Information

No. Being a person doesn't entail the use of the body of another against their will. The legal status of the unborn isn't relevant to abortion.
anarchist100OakTownADee
A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -   edited July 30
    I came across this piece last night which I think fairly lays out the position for both sides , it’s a short piece well worth the read ……

                                                                                Yale news 

                         Analogies can shed light on abortion debate

    PETER JOHNSTON 12:00 AM, APR 03, 2007


       No  one is pro-death. No one is anti-choice. Yet both sides of the abortion debate consider the other side absurd. Why?

    The pro-choicer considers pregnancy the construction of a human person. Compare pregnancy, for a moment, to the construction of a car in a factory. The relevant question in the comparison is this: At what point in the construction process does the object under construction become a car? Some may say that it is when the object receives an engine. In the analogy to pregnancy, this parallels quickening. Others might say that the object becomes a car when it has an engine, axles and wheels, and the capacity to move. In the analogy to pregnancy, this parallels viability. And some may hold out and claim that the object isn’t really a car until it rolls out of the factory, paralleling birth.

    But all who consider the question are certain that at the very beginning stages of construction, when only a few scraps of metal and a few bolts are in place, the object under construction is not a car. Similarly, if pregnancy is the construction of a human person, then at the early stages of pregnancy the embryo is clearly not a human person. The consequence for abortion policy: People disagree when a fetus becomes a person, but all agree that an embryo is not, so abortion is justified early in pregnancy and debatable only later on. From this point of view, pro-lifers seem irrational, for they try to legislate upon the absurd idea that an embryo is a person. And because the pro-life position is often expressed in religious terms, pro-lifers seem to consider an irrational religious dogma the basis for public policy.

    The pro-lifer does not consider pregnancy the construction of a human person. Rather, he considers it the development of a human person. Compare pregnancy, for a moment, to the development of a Polaroid photograph. The camera clicks, setting off a chain reaction of chemicals on photographic paper. In the analogy to pregnancy, this parallels conception. If someone were to wipe the chemicals away, saying that the image was only a potential photograph, he would seem crazy; he cut short the development of a uniquely existing photograph with an essential nature. In the analogy to pregnancy, this parallels abortion.

    At what point in the process does the developing image become a photograph? The image of the photograph is not immediately apparent, but is revealed and develops over time. All agree, then, that the undeveloped photograph is very dissimilar from the developed photograph. Nevertheless, the undeveloped photograph is still a photograph. Similarly, if pregnancy is the development of a human person, an embryo, though at an early stage of development, is still a human person. The consequence for abortion policy: After conception, abortion is unjustified because it cuts short the natural development of a human person. From this point of view, pro-choicers seem irrational in asserting that an embryo is not a human person and dangerous in allowing its destruction. And because the pro-choice position seems so destructive, pro-lifers make abortion a litmus test and invoke divine aid to combat such evil.

    The central difference between the pro-choice and pro-life position, as first stated by Valparaiso law professor Richard Stith, is the subtle dichotomy between pregnancy as construction and pregnancy as development. Pro-choicers continue to assert the inviolability of choice, and pro-lifers continue to assert the inviolability of life, but that discussion is largely meaningless, for nobody rejects choice or life in itself. The question that should dominate debate is whether pregnancy is a process of construction or a process of development. If pro-choicers can convince pro-lifers that pregnancy is the construction of a human person, pro-lifers should accommodate themselves to existing abortion policy. On the other hand, if pro-lifers can convince pro-choicers that pregnancy is the development of a human person, pro-choicers should abandon abortion rights.

    Pro-choicers are often uninterested in debate because they feel that they cannot appeal to reason, that the pro-life argument is essentially religious and irrational. Pro-lifers are often uninterested in debate because they feel that the justification for abortion clouds rationality itself. But the exposition above reveals that neither side of the abortion debate is irrational. Instead, pro-choicers and pro-lifers begin with different presuppositions from which their respective conclusions follow.

    While both sides are rational, only one side can be right. If pregnancy is the construction of a human person, our society is infringing upon the reproductive freedom of women by stigmatizing early-term abortion and threatening more restrictive legislation. If pregnancy is the development of a human person, our society is legally allowing the killing of innocent human persons. In either case, society is messing up. It is now the duty of intellectuals on both sides to open their minds and address the issue afresh.

    Peter Johnston is a sophomore in Saybrook College. His column appears on alternate Tuesdays.


    SkepticalOne
  • @Dee

    First thanks for the article......
    Keeping in theme...

    Like with a car fix what you can afford to fix first it’s still a part of the car that's is broken and it needs to be repaired not ignored. What is broken with abortion? First It might be murder because the word abort describes an order to stop and when you put it in the same subject matter as pregnancy it is a description to stop life, birth, and immigration. I am going to skip the details of possible crime one and go to crime two.

    Due to the nature of the word abort itself patient privacy is lost and is lost in an illegal fashion violating 5th Amendment constitutional right. The rights are lost equally on 2 people not one person and only one of the people is an American citizen. This opens a door for even another argument must a person be an American citizen to have constitutional rights. This debate will be left to another time as well and the issue of lethal force.

    Sometimes matter of law matters of right and wrong are ahead of their time. This is the legal case of pregnancy abortion as it was found to be a criminal violation of privacy. Due to only the fact it was an unconstitutional violation it was decided to be unworthy of law enforcement. Who decided?  

    It is self-evident that a legal right to privacy is not a priority to some people and loss was not limited to just women, by women, for women, on personal female issues. The facts introduced to the United States Constitution which is the legal article that describe the cause, the alibi of treason against parliament and the courts of England and brought America to its own states of law, independent form all others were the right to establishes the more perfect union with established justice. So, we are the same idea of clear established justice is everywhere and in every Country.

     

    Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The law included provisions designed to save money for health care businesses by encouraging electronic transactions, but it also required new safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of that information. The law gave Congress until August 21, 1999

     

    Protecting the Privacy of Patients' Health Information | ASPE (hhs.gov)


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1815 Pts   -  
    An expectant mother gave consent to the baby by engaging in the activity that can create such a life.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1815 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Interesting article, but ultimately not relevant.  Even the most stringent abortion laws in the country allow abortions at the very earliest stages.  They ban abortion only after a heartbeat is detectable, after the engine is installed and running, if you will.  I can't help but think the pro-abortion side would have had a lot more sympathy and support if they'd allowed a ban on partial-birth abortions.  By any measure, such a procedure destroys a life and for no reason other than the convenience of the mother.
  • @CYDdharta
    An expectant mother gave consent to the baby by engaging in the activity that can create such a life.

    Men are honest, Men lie, and life is unpredictable in the dangers it brings to the doorstep of others. The risks and dangers I expose myself to in earning a living are not the same as the risks I expose posterity to for simple be assigned a place in the future of humanity.

    An exstention of life given by the mother intentional or not comes a risk to her and her alone without consitutional independence. It is United States Consitutional right which asignes that risk to those who would activly palce a women in harms way without her concent to be in that possition. If you are to gamble with the womens life the consitutional right to common defense to the gedneral welfare describes for tranquility you do so with asingment of equal risk, not equal right.

    You, I, and humanity have given consent for a mother to kill the embryo without discretion...stopping immigration and the creation of posterity. The introduction of sperm is only like placing the bullet in the gun it does not make the embryo less dangerous to the embryo's creator. The argument of body autonomy is an imperfect union only because it is not a self-evident truth making it inferior or impossible to from a more perfect state of the union with established justice.

    "She is by law a Presadera as all women are created equal by thier creator." She is no longer mother as she is being held under consitutional united state without prejudice in law or other, by use of law.

  • @CYDdharta

    If I were to address truth I might say as a witness the medical doctor had been given faulty and possibly negligent legal advice in this matter and though Dee may have issues with finding relevance of insight sometimes, I do not. I find the article relevant, this does not mean I believe it is constructed around whole truth or self-evident truths without questions..


  • @CYDdharta

    I can't help but think the pro-abortion side would have had a lot more sympathy and support if they'd allowed a ban on partial-birth abortions.

    Partial-birth abortions have been banned for nearly 2 decades.

    Dee
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1815 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    Partial-birth abortions have been banned for nearly 2 decades.

    It was, with an exemption to include "all factors" related to the well being of the mother as decided in Bolton.  The emotional well being of the mother is a caveat big enough to drive a truck through.  It allowed Gosnell to conduct hundreds of such procedure for 4 decades.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    I am not sure how your opening statement supports your thesis. How does the assertion that one is not entitled to using another person's body against their will imply that personhood is not relevant to abortion? It sounds like you are arguing against laws restricting abortion - but there are many more aspects of abortion than just legal considerations. I can absolutely see, for instance, a woman being conflicted about undergoing abortion if she thinks that the creature inside her is a person, regardless of what the law says.

    I would also use this chance to play a devil's advocate for a bit and say that there are quite a few laws which virtually everyone supports which violate people's physical autonomy. The most obvious example is hard drug laws: heroin is outlawed everywhere in the world, and very few people (I am one of them) believe that its consumption, purchase and distribution should be fully legalized. Those laws are usually argued for on pragmatic grounds: "If heroin is legalized, our society will become a mess". One of the most common arguments in support of abortion restrictions is similar: "If abortion is legalized, our society will become a mess, our birth rates will plummet, our women will lose touch with their biological needs and become miserable, our families will fall apart..." 
    So I think that, whenever you make the claim about someone's entitlement to use of another person's body, it helps to make what I call a "consistency check": make sure that you apply your argument to all of your stances, not just the one you are arguing at the moment. If that turns out to not be the case, then you have to reexamine the argument and resolve this conflict somehow to avoid intellectual dishonesty.

    My personal stance is, abortions should be fully legalized at any stage, and women should not lose a second of sleep over deciding to undergo abortion when they do not want to give birth to a child - but I do not think that even that is sufficient to claim that personhood is completely irrelevant to abortion. 
  • @CYDdharta

    It was, with an exemption to include "all factors" related to the well being of the mother as decided in Bolton. 

    Preserving the life and health of the mother is SO inconvenient and unreasonable. 

    It allowed Gosnell to conduct hundreds of such procedure for 4 decades.

    The national ban wasnt inacted until 2003 and he was charged in 2010. (That's not 4 decades). 

    Gosnell had a long history of complaints and violations. His reign of terror had more to with lack of regulation and oversight than legislative restrictions.

    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • CYDdharta said:
    @CYDdharta

    Partial-birth abortions have been banned for nearly 2 decades.

    It was, with an exemption to include "all factors" related to the well being of the mother as decided in Bolton.  The emotional well being of the mother is a caveat big enough to drive a truck through.  It allowed Gosnell to conduct hundreds of such procedure for 4 decades.
    The crime however is the criminal loss of both medical and legal privacy occuring in any and all States of America, no exclusion, Under a Federal legilsatioin of law about all patients, mother, fetus embryo, and sperm donor. Pardon the general description made of men by the female quest of United States Constitutional Independence. This is a focus as the act of "treason" of some people, made  on a political level, based solely on an inability for the united state constitution refusing to recognize the rights of women, not the possibility women simply did not have the desire and or skills to establish the state of the union on their own.

    "We the people in order to form the more perfect union."
    To the best of my knowledge women are a people and have been called upon to take on the burden of location of all united states constitutional right.

  • @MayCaesar

    How does the assertion that one is not entitled to using another person's body against their will imply that personhood is not relevant to abortion?

    Personhood does not grant one the use of another's body. Period. I, as a person, don't have the right to insist other people provide their organs, tissues, or blood to me against their will. Pregnancy should not be an exception.

    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • @MayCaesar

    I will consider your hard drugs/abortion comparison. At first blush, I do not consider these situations to be analogous. 
    MayCaesar
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • Argument Topic: Was, or was not?

    Abortion is the medical treatment that never was...In the movies people are note for their scripted colorful portrait of the CIA for making suggestions like  "Sorry, for any inconvenience experienced we would like to help, however,  we were never here"...


  • exconexcon 562 Pts   -   edited July 30
    Hello:

    Years ago, when my wife became pregnant, I thought of abortion as a procedure..  These days, I wonder who he or she would have been.. 

    Yes, I'm still pro-choice and conflicted about it.

    excon
    SkepticalOne
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    How does the assertion that one is not entitled to using another person's body against their will imply that personhood is not relevant to abortion?

    Personhood does not grant one the use of another's body. Period. I, as a person, don't have the right to insist other people provide their organs, tissues, or blood to me against their will. Pregnancy should not be an exception.

    But the relation of relevance includes more factors than you having or not having some right. Personhood may not be related to the question of abortion being or not being a right (I am not convinced that it is not, however), but it may be related to the question of abortion begin a good choice for the given person at the given time, for instance.
  • @excon

    Legal or Medical?


  • So...?

    Is the court documented abortion issue an unconstitutional illegal invasion of a female patient’s medical privacy governed by the Federal law protecting patient privacy? 


  • OakTownAOakTownA 348 Pts   -  
    "An expectant mother gave consent to the baby by engaging in the activity that can create such a life."
    Consenting to sex is not consenting to becoming pregnant. I enjoy sex. I have zero desire to become pregnant. If consenting to having sex is the same as consenting to become pregnant, you are consenting to be in an accident every time you drive or get into a car.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2925 Pts   -  
    The legal status of the unborn isn't relevant to abortion...

    The legal status of the unborn shouldn't be an issue, but in the US, it is because of the number of theocrats in positions of power... The problem is that too many people conflate moral status with legal status...  Theocrats, like those on Debate Island, would use the law to define morality and force their views (under threat of penalty) on others, that is what makes them theocrats... 
    SkepticalOneJohn_C_87
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • The legal status of the unborn isn't relevant to abortion...

    The legal status of the unborn shouldn't be an issue, but in the US, it is because of the number of theocrats in positions of power... The problem is that too many people conflate moral status with legal status...  Theocrats, like those on Debate Island, would use the law to define morality and force their views (under threat of penalty) on others, that is what makes them theocrats... 
    So much for International medical patient privacy........The legal status in question is citizenship and is relevant in the improper disclosure of medical information.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch