Abortion: Furyus George vs. Prometheus_fr

[StrictSeparationist]

This thread has been created for a formal debate between Furyus George and Promethus_fr on the following resolution:

Resolved: Abortion is morally wrong.

Furyus George will go first, taking the affirmative, and Prometheus will oppose. The debate will last three rounds as agreed to in the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=88308).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=88700) has been set up in MF&P for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

We ask that the formal debate participants refrain from posting in the Peanut Gallery until after the debate is over.

Good luck to both debate participants.

[Furyus George]

Allow me to begin by expressing my sincere appreciation to the owners, administrators and moderators of the Internet Infidels Discussion Forums for hosting this debate and allowing me to participate. I would also like to thank Prometheus_fr for accepting my challenge to this debate, and look forward to the vigorous defense of his views I'm sure he will provide. To those who take the time to read the arguments I will be making, I want to express my appreciation to you as well.

I argue that abortion is morally wrong. While setting up the parameters to this debate, I had stated that I would base my argument on the following logic:

Killing an innocent person is morally wrong.
Abortion kills an innocent person.
Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

This logic is flawed. Killing an innocent person, unintentionally, is not morally wrong. My logic should be as follows:

Intentionally killing an innocent person is morally wrong.
Abortion intentionally kills an innocent person.
Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

First, I argue that throughout human history, with little deviation, the intentional killing of an innocent human being has been considered immoral. The intentional killing of an innocent person unjustly denies said person of their intrinsic rights to, as so succinctly put in the American Declaration of Independence, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness�(1).

My opponent has made comments during informal discussion here at IIDF that seemingly support the argument that humans have intrinsic rights. While in a discussion with me on how morals, purpose and values are determined, Prometheus_fr stated: "We only have the purpose that we give ourselves. We are free to define this purpose." and "Why is it so hard for you to understand that humans are enough to give a purpose to their lives, future and morals"(2). I agree that as beings with free will, we are free to define the purpose of our lives, or what could be called the "pursuit of happiness." If "humans are enough," or humanity is enough, to give purpose to life, present and future, I argue that the freedom to define one's purpose is an intrinsic right belonging to every human being.

I also argue that if one has an intrinsic right to define their own purpose (pursuit of happiness), one must, logically, have the intrinsic right to liberty itself. One must first be free in order to freely define their own purpose. Further, if one has an intrinsic right to liberty, one must have an intrinsic right to life itself. One must first be alive before they are free. I argue that our rights don't begin with our freedom to define our purpose, but with the right to life itself. The right to life is the foundation upon which all other human rights are established. Intentionally killing an innocent person unjustly denies said person their intrinsic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and is therefore morally wrong.

The debate over abortion, for all intents and purposes, doesn’t delve into whether or not a zygote/embryo/fetus/infant is innocent. It would be absurd to argue that one had committed an act justifying his or her intentional killing. Even if it were possible, guilt or innocence isn’t an issue with my opponent when it comes to the intrinsic value of life. Prometheus_fr has stated in informal discussion that he considers capital punishment "abhorrent because I was raised to empathize with people who are about to lose their lives (they have but one life then it's all over)" (3). I can safely state as a matter of fact that an embryo/fetus/infant is completely innocent and incapable of committing any act that would morally justify his or her killing. The real issues are whether or not what is killed by abortion is a person, and if so, does this person have rights.

According to Webster's New World College Dictionary (4), “person� is defined as “a human being, especially as distinguished from a thing or lower animal; individual man, woman or child.� Further, Webster’s defines “person� as “a living human body� and “personality; self; being.�

I argue that a human being, or person, begins existing at conception. Quoting the biology textbook Life: The Science of Biology, "The zygote, a single cell resulting from the union of sperm and egg, gives rise ultimately to all the cells of the adult body - more than a hundred trillion cells of diverse sorts in each individual of our species. Many intricate steps make up the development of the body. Development is a process of progressive change that continues not just through growth of the embryo but rather until the death of the animal. During development an organism successfully takes on the forms of the several stages of its life cycle" (5).

Note that the single-celled zygote "gives rise ultimately to all the cells of the adult body." The zygote contains all the genetic information and material required to develop into an adult human, and this development is internally directed by the zygote, not the mother. Note also that "development is a process" that extends beyond the womb and continues until the "death of the animal." Note further that there are "several stages" to the "life cycle." All human beings go through this exact process. From zygote to mature adult to death, a human possesses the same genetic information and material and the same life. Put plainly, there hasn't been a time since your conception when you weren't "you."

My opponent has stated in informal discussion that "An individual is not reducible to his genes. And a bunch of genes in a couple of cells aren't enough to make an individual" (6). In fact, according to the textbook An Introduction to Genetics (7), an individual is reducible to his or her genes. Such a reduction is referred to as a "genotype." A genotype is "the entire genetic constitution of an organism" (8). A genotype “determines whether the zygote becomes a man, a mouse, a moose or a tomato plant. It sets the limits within which the course of development flows� (9). An individual’s personality is determined by their genotype in combination with external influences, or environment, resulting in a phenotype. A phenotype "is the sum total of all of the traits of the individual, from biochemical to behavioral, resulting from the interaction between the genotype and the environment" (10). Interestingly, the word "zygote" is defined in An Introduction to Genetics as "The diploid cell produced at fertilization by the union of the haploid gametes. Also the individual derived from this cell" (emphasis added) (11). In fact, a "bunch of genes," in one cell, the zygote, are enough to make an individual person.

I argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus/infant fulfills Webster’s definition of a person, based on the following:.

1) A zygote/embryo/fetus/infant is a “human being.� He or she is biologically and genetically a member of the human species. He or she is not another thing, and he or she is not a lower animal. We currently have nearly 6 billion examples of empirical evidence that what begins at conception will, barring ill-health or misfortune, develop into a mature adult human being.

2) A zygote/embryo/fetus/infant is “a living human body,� positioned exactly in the biological process of development expected for his or her age.

3) A zygote/embryo/fetus/infant has personality, defined by Webster’s as “the quality or fact of being a particular person; identity, individuality.� A zygote/embryo/fetus/infant is a genetically unique human being, different from both his or her mother and father. He or she is genetically complete, with many aspects of his or her personality predetermined but as yet not influenced by external environment (Though argument can be made that external environments are already influencing he or she. Consider the effects if one spent their gestation constantly serenaded by classical music or jack-hammers). A zygote/embryo/fetus/infant is a “self,� defined by Webster’s as “one’s own person as distinct from all others.� In fact, a human zygote/embryo/fetus/infant is unique and unrepeatable.

I believe this fairly establishes that a zygote/embryo/fetus/infant is a person, and therefore, as a person, he or she has intrinsic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Intrinsic rights, by definition, must begin when the person begins to exist. It cannot be said that at one point of development one does not have intrinsic rights and then at another point of development one does have intrinsic rights. If a two-year-old human or an thirty-year old human has intrinsic rights, so must the zygote/embryo/fetus/infant. As a human being, or person, begins existence at conception, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must also begin at conception. From this conclusion, I argue that abortion kills an innocent person.

Before I continue with my argument regarding intent, I wish to clarify a point. I will be arguing regarding a woman’s intent when she has an abortion procedure, but the reader should not imply that I believe the morality of the abortion issue is confined to the female of our species. In fact, A) both male and female are equally responsible for the act of procreation; B) often the male partner forces, directly or indirectly, his partner into getting an abortion; C) the male partner often encourages the female to get an abortion, either emotionally or by helping secure the procedure; D) the majority of doctors who perform abortions are male; and E) some pregnancies are the result of violence committed by males. Clearly, while it is impossible for a male to have an abortion, males are involved implicitly with abortion, and as such, are not exempt from moral judgement resulting from abortions.

I argue that a woman intentionally kills a person when she has an abortion. The argument may be made that her intent is not to kill the child, but rather preserving a career, maintaining a lifestyle, staying within financial or emotional limitations, ending the condition of pregnancy, etc. I argue that morally, one must make decisions based not only on intent, but on the consequences of acting on that intention as well. For example, a drunken driver may have intended on simply going home to bed, but we morally (and legally) hold him responsible for driving drunk and crashing into someone else. Though the drunk driver never intended to hurt anyone, we agree that his driving drunk is immoral. I assert that few, if any, women who have abortions don’t understand that they are ending the life of something, if not a human being. Again, for example, say a woman’s intent on getting an abortion is based on her realization that she cannot financially support a child. She must make assumptions about the cost of raising a child, and therefore implicitly understands that abortion will end the life of the child she cannot afford. Her intent may be to live within her means, but the consequence of acting on this intent is the death of her child. The moral result is that she intentionally kills her child in order to live within her means.

I argue that abortion is immoral even when done to save the life of the mother, though I agree that a woman should not be forced to give her physical life (as opposed to her professional “life� or her social “life�) in order for her child to survive. As an illustration, I assert that lying is immoral. However, if bandits were to break into one’s home and demand to know where one’s wife and children were in order to kidnap them, the immorality of lying about their whereabouts is outweighed by the moral necessity of protecting one’s family. In this case one would be expected to lie, and would be justified. The same holds true with aborting a fetus to save the life of the mother. While the abortion is immoral since it kills an innocent person, demanding that the mother sacrifice her life for her child, when childbirth that kills a mother will most likely result in the death of the child as well, is the greater immorality.

The fact is that the mother whose life is threatened by pregnancy or delivery (the result of a weak heart, for example) has no option but to abort or possibly die during childbirth. One pregnant because of rape, though an absolutely horrible situation, does have options available to her. A pregnant rape victim could carry the child and upon his or her delivery, put him or her up for adoption. She could also choose to keep the child and try to have positive closure to a terrible situation. The difficulties experienced by the mother who carries a child created by a violent act are tremendous, I agree. But this temporary difficulty does not morally compare to ending the life of an innocent person, essentially creating two victims from one violent act. A rape victim’s intent may be to remove any reminder of the violence committed against her, or her intent may be to express anger at the perpetrator of the rape. Despite these seemingly justifiable intentions, the child in no way is responsible for his or her existence, and is therefore innocent. I argue that to intentionally kill a child that is the result of rape kills an innocent person, and is, in fact, immoral

To review, intentionally killing an innocent person is morally wrong because it unjustly denies them their intrinsic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Both biology and genetics prove that a unique human individual begins at conception, therefore, by definition, rights and value that are intrinsic to humanity must also take effect at conception. Abortion intentionally and unjustly denies these intrinsic rights, therefore it is morally wrong to abort an innocent human being in the womb.

Thank you for your time.

Furyus George



(1) http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
(2) http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=1615059&postcount=155
(3) http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=1609066&postcount=97
(4) Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition. IDG Books Worldwide, Inc. 2001
(5) Purves, William K. Orians, Gordon H. Heller, H. Craig. Life: The Science of Biology Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA, 1992. Page 329
(6) http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=1624969&postcount=185
(7) Merrell, David J. An Introduction to Genetics W.W. Norton and Company. New York, 1975. Page 790
(8) Merrell. Page 8
(9) Merrell. page 9
(10) Merrell, page 9
(11) Merrell. Page 798

[French Prometheus]

Greetings,

First of all, I would like to acknowledge all those who contribute their time to maintain this website. If we take into account the numerous links scattered throughout the site, it is one of the most comprehensive resources on atheism on the Internet. I would also like to thank Furyus George for choosing me as his challenger in this debate.

Before starting my reponse to Furyus George’s first statement, I want to clarify one point. The vast majority of pro-choice people are not pro-abortion. I myself am definitely pro-choice and I will argue here that early abortions are not morally wrong. However, I think most abortions should and could be avoided. The countries with the lowest abortion rates are those where sex education is both comprehensive and realistic and where contraception is cheap and easily available (as shown in this study (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsest.htm)).

Point 1 : History and morality

I will start with a few words about history and then I will state my stance on the origin of morality.

History

First, I argue that throughout human history, with little deviation, the intentional killing of an innocent human being has been considered immoral.
This statement is incorrect. I will just give two counter-examples :

* Sacrifice of innocent children in Carthaginian and Incan societies. In those societies, the sacrifice of children who were neither slaves nor prisoners of wars were regarded as morally right.

* Exposure of unwanted babies in Ancient Greece and Rome. This could be called "post-birth abortion". The techniques used in the Ancient World to terminate unwanted pregnancies were not always effective. Therefore, it was customary to expose the babies outside and leave them to die of dehydration, heat or cold. Their dead bodies were left to be eaten by wild beasts. The Greeks and the Romans did not regard this practice as morally wrong.

Abortion has always been practised or attempted by women saddled with unwanted pregnancies. Some (not all !) ancient codes of law made it illegal but that never deterred the practice. For example, the Code of the Assura (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/1075assyriancode.html) which was written over 3000 years ago states :

I.52. If a woman of her own accord drop that which is in her, they shall prosecute her, they shall convict her, they shall crucify her, they shall not bury her. If she die from dropping that which is in her, they shall crucify her, they shall not bury her.

It should also be noted that the stance of the Catholic Church on abortion (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm) changed several times over the course of history.

Origin of morality

The intentional killing of an innocent person unjustly denies said person of their intrinsic rights to, as so succinctly put in the American Declaration of Independence, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

I will argue from a relativistic moral point of view. This shoudn’t be a bone of contention in this debate as I reach the same conclusion as Furyus George : I consider the murder of an innocent person morally wrong.

Here is what I wrote about morality on this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1609066#post1609066) (edited to adapt it to this debate):

I'm a moral relativist therefore I don't believe in "absolute morals". I believe morality is a convention chosen by a given society at a given time.

*Does it mean that society can choose any set of rules?
No. There are at least 2 kinds of limits :
1/ Morals have to be compatible with life in society otherwise said society disappears.
2/ We are a gregarian species. Some traits like cooperation and empathy are good for the survival of our species and eventually became dominant through natural selection.
Apart from that, a society can develop a wide range of moralities. And that can lead to human sacrifices, genocide, cannibalism (though this practice is biologically risky),... Do I find these things repugnant? YES. Are they morally wrong? In my moral system, YES. In theirs, NO.

*Does it mean that an individual can morally do whatever he pleases?
No.
1/ Morality only exists when there's more than one person.
2/ From two people upward we have a society with its rules (even if they're tacit). If someone breaks the rules, the others will do what it takes to protect themselves (stone him, jail him, fine him,...).
3/ Our "personal" vision of society's moral standards depends on our education, life experiences and to a lesser degree on our genes. We have free will but we cannot exert it to its full potential. I find murder (e.g. the death penalty) abhorrent because I was raised to empathize with people who are about to lose their lives (they have but one life then it's all over). And I'm glad most people living in my society feel the same and wouldn't kill me if given a chance. That's why I wouldn't murder someone I don't like even if I could get away with it.

*Are some moral systems superior to others?
Yes. A system that makes a society stable is superior (or more efficient if you prefer) than one that brings about chaos and the destruction of the society that supports it. And as far as I now the best way to keep a large society (millions or even billions of people) stable and thriving is by making its members happy. Now that's bound to generate contradictions : what makes me happy might make my neighbor unhappy and he may want to change our society. What's the best compromise? Do whatever you like in the pursuit of your happiness as long as you don't harm others. If you discriminate against a part of the population when your own rights are not jeopardized, you should expect retaliation sooner or later. A moral system that condones such unwarranted discrimination is inferior to one that condemns it.

* Trial and error
Human civilizations have tried a number of moral systems. History shows that if you try to eliminate a group of people, they will fight back and try to detroy both your society and the morals on which it is built. If these people are innocent, there is the additional risk that other members of this society, who have been spared so far, will fear that they or their loved ones will eventually be targeted. Empathy makes that feeling even stronger. Moral systems that condoned such behaviors failed miserably. A society that enforces laws based on morals that are unnecessarily too restrictive is unstable and doomed to disappear in the long run. A system that brings greater stability to a society (both within and without) will be held superior by this society. Keeping people happy, educated and responsible does bring more stability and is eventually profitable for all (it enhances everyone’s pursuit of happiness). In such a society, murdering an innocent person is necessarily immoral. I adhere to this set of moral values as I consider it superior (according to the definition given above) to all others that I know of. Therefore I consider the murder of an innocent person morally wrong.

The debate over abortion, for all intents and purposes, doesn’t delve into whether or not a zygote/embryo/fetus/infant is innocent. It would be absurd to argue that one had committed an act justifying his or her intentional killing.
Actually, several cultures consider some or all children guilty at birth or even at conception. But this is not the point at issue in this debate. I consider that any individual is innocent AT LEAST until he/she has committed an action that is morally wrong (I say "at least" because we may consider that guilt only occurs when someone understands right and wrong).

Point 2 : Personhood as defined by Furyus George

The real issues are whether or not what is killed by abortion is a person, and if so, does this person have rights.
Yes, I agree. This is the real issue.

According to Webster's New World College Dictionary (4), “person� is defined as “a human being, especially as distinguished from a thing or lower animal; individual man, woman or child.� Further, Webster’s defines “person� as “a living human body� and “personality; self; being.�

I argue that a human being, or person, begins existing at conception. Quoting the biology textbook Life: The Science of Biology, "The zygote, a single cell resulting from the union of sperm and egg, gives rise ultimately to all the cells of the adult body - more than a hundred trillion cells of diverse sorts in each individual of our species. Many intricate steps make up the development of the body. Development is a process of progressive change that continues not just through growth of the embryo but rather until the death of the animal. During development an organism successfully takes on the forms of the several stages of its life cycle" (5).

Note that the single-celled zygote "gives rise ultimately to all the cells of the adult body." The zygote contains all the genetic information and material required to develop into an adult human, and this development is internally directed by the zygote, not the mother. Note also that "development is a process" that extends beyond the womb and continues until the "death of the animal." Note further that there are "several stages" to the "life cycle." All human beings go through this exact process. From zygote to mature adult to death, a human possesses the same genetic information and material and the same life. Put plainly, there hasn't been a time since your conception when you weren't "you."

The statement "the zygote contains all the genetic information and material required to develop into an adult human, and this development is internally directed by the zygote, not the mother" is an incorrect extrapolation. Twins have identical genotypes but their phenotypes are somewhat different. If you examine twins you will notice differences both physically and intellectually. And they also develop different personalities. A more striking example is that of clones of mammals. Though they have the exact copy of their genitor’s genes, they show many differences (like different spots on their skin). The evolution of an embryo and then an individual is only partly dependent on the genotype. Even within the womb, environmental influences play an important role.

My opponent has stated in informal discussion that "An individual is not reducible to his genes. And a bunch of genes in a couple of cells aren't enough to make an individual" (6). In fact, according to the textbook An Introduction to Genetics (7), an individual is reducible to his or her genes. Such a reduction is referred to as a "genotype." A genotype is "the entire genetic constitution of an organism" (8). A genotype “determines whether the zygote becomes a man, a mouse, a moose or a tomato plant. It sets the limits within which the course of development flows� (9). An individual’s personality is determined by their genotype in combination with external influences, or environment, resulting in a phenotype. A phenotype "is the sum total of all of the traits of the individual, from biochemical to behavioral, resulting from the interaction between the genotype and the environment" (10). Interestingly, the word "zygote" is defined in An Introduction to Genetics as "The diploid cell produced at fertilization by the union of the haploid gametes. Also the individual derived from this cell" (emphasis added) (11). In fact, a "bunch of genes," in one cell, the zygote, are enough to make an individual person.

Twins have identical genotypes and yet they are clearly two different individuals. Therefore, a unique set of genes is not necessary to make an individual. What’s more, an individual is not reducible to his genotype. A set of genes is not enough to make an individual endowed with all the chararcteristics of personhood.

I argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus/infant fulfills Webster’s definition of a person, based on the following:.

1) A zygote/embryo/fetus/infant is a “human being.� He or she is biologically and genetically a member of the human species. He or she is not another thing, and he or she is not a lower animal.
A cell is not a member of any species (except for unicellular organisms). Biology only demonstrates that an embryo has the (genetic) potential to become a human being. The cells contained in a hair follicle also have a full set of human genes. But they are not human beings.

Moreover, a cancerous cell is alive and has a unique and complete set of human genes. Yet it is not and never will be a human being. A unique set of genes is not sufficient to make an individual.

2) A zygote/embryo/fetus/infant is “a living human body,� positioned exactly in the biological process of development expected for his or her age.
No. A zygote/embryo/early fetus is only living tissue with the capability to become a human being.

3) A zygote/embryo/fetus/infant has personality, defined by Webster’s as “the quality or fact of being a particular person; identity, individuality.� A zygote/embryo/fetus/infant is a genetically unique human being, different from both his or her mother and father. He or she is genetically complete, with many aspects of his or her personality predetermined but as yet not influenced by external environment (Though argument can be made that external environments are already influencing he or she. Consider the effects if one spent their gestation constantly serenaded by classical music or jack-hammers). A zygote/embryo/fetus/infant is a “self,� defined by Webster’s as “one’s own person as distinct from all others.� In fact, a human zygote/embryo/fetus/infant is unique and unrepeatable.
As shown above, a unique set of genes is neither necessary nor sufficient to make an individual.

Point 3 : The inadequacy of conception to define the emergence of personhood

As a human being, or person, begins existence at conception, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must also begin at conception.
Let us make a thought experiment about human cloning (that will soon be technically feasible though I think it should not be done on ethical grounds).

Let us take a cell from a human hair follicle. It is treated so it can be totipotent again and then the nucleus is extracted. It is then implanted into a female donor’s ovum from which the nucleus was removed. The ovum contains no genetic information whatsover from the female donor. It is merely a biological matrix for the nucleus from the hair follicle cell. The resulting cell is implanted into a woman’s womb. It starts dividing and goes through all the stages of embryonic and fetal development. Finally a baby is born.

There was no conception and no fertilization of a female gamete by a male gamete, no combination of DNA between two haploid cells. There only was a diploid cell all along the process. You start with a hair follicle cell which is clearly not an individual. You end with a baby who clearly is an individual. When does personhood start ?

Point 4 : Another definition of personhood

The difference between a human being and human tissue (a hair follicle, a liver, a bone,…) is conscience. Therefore an appropriate definition for the start of personhood is conscience. Human tissue without conscience is a biological thing and therefore not a person (per Webster’s definition).

Conscience is based in the brain :

- Traumatic brain injuries often result in alteration of conscience (confusion, mood changes or even coma). They can also lead to changes of personality. The best known example is that of Phineas Gage in 1843. He survived a major brain injury caused by a 3-foot-long rod that ran through his head.

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/health_and_medical/pubs/tbi.htm)
Before the accident Gage was a quiet, mild-mannered man; after his injuries he became an obscene, obstinate, self-absorbed man.
- Substances which interact with the receptors of some neurotransmitters in the brain also cause conscience alteration like hallucinations.

- Patients who have undergone split brain surgery show deep alterations in their perception of the outside world. Some of them even seem to have "two minds" which contradict each other.

Biology 202 - 2000 First Web Report (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro00/web1/Vasiliadis.html)
When the researchers asked the right side [of a patient’s brain] what he wanted to be, he answered an automobile racer while his left side stated he wanted to be a draftsman. […] Another patient also exhibited strange behaviors with his right and left hands. His right hand was trying to pull up his pants while the left hand was trying to pull then down. A similar incident occurred when a split-brain patient was having an argument with his wife. The patient was attacking his wife with his left hand while his right hand was defending her.

The logical consequence :

The fetus becomes an individual when it acquires conscience, that is to say when it has developped enough brain tissue to support it. This is a gradual process. The determination of when the fetus can really be considered a person is beyond the scope of this debate. Suffice to say that the brain starts developing during the third week and conscience certainly “appears� much later, when the brain is large enough.

Point 5 : Reasons behind an abortion

If an embryo were a human being then abortion would be murder. I agree with Furyus George that in this case abortion would always be immoral. It would only be acceptable as the lesser of two evils when the other alternative is certain death of the mother.

Conclusion

Abortion is the destruction of a group of cells which merely have the potential of becoming a person. But an embryo or early stage fetus is not an actual person yet. Therefore abortion is not morally wrong.

[Furyus George]

In defending his position that abortion is not immoral, Prometheus_fr makes an argument that is contradictory, capricious, and scientifically unsupportable. The result is a thick fog of moral ambiguity.

Astonishingly, the ambiguity begins before the argument is even presented. Consider that my opponent argues that a fetus is “only living tissue with the capability to become a human being.� and “Human tissue without conscience is a biological thing and therefore not a person.� My opponent equates a fetus with human tissue such as “a hair follicle, a liver, a bone� and that it “is not morally wrong� to have an abortion. The conclusion reached by my opponent is that “Abortion is the destruction of a group of cells which merely have the potential of becoming a person.� To restate my opponents argument, abortion is not immoral because what is killed has no more biological significance (and implicitly, no more moral significance) than a hair follicle.

In spite of this conclusion, my opponent felt it was necessary to make a clarification prior to beginning his argument:

Before starting my reponse to Furyus George’s first statement, I want to clarify one point. The vast majority of pro-choice people are not pro-abortion. I myself am definitely pro-choice and I will argue here that early abortions are not morally wrong. However, I think most abortions should and could be avoided. The countries with the lowest abortion rates are those where sex education is both comprehensive and realistic and where contraception is cheap and easily available.

Why, if abortion kills something with no greater moral significance than a hair follicle, does my opponent think “most abortions should and could be avoided?� Why is a country with a lower abortion rate optimal? Why is “comprehensive and realistic� sex education needed? Why does my opponent attempt to disassociate himself from the very position he intends to defend? That one is “pro-choice� and not “pro-abortion� is a common refrain among those that are, in fact, pro-abortion. This tactic is nothing more that semantics meant to distort and diminish, as much for the speaker as for their audience, the truth behind abortion. I assert that this is because proponents of abortion know intuitively that what gets aborted is far more valuable that a hair follicle. What gets aborted is, in fact, a human being.

My opponent states he believes that abortions should be avoided through comprehensive education, and then goes on to argue that abortion kills the biological and moral equivalent of a hair follicle, revealing a serious weakness with his position. There are other serious contradictions within my opponent’s argument, two of which I will detail.

My opponent suggested the following intellectual exercise:

Let us make a thought experiment about human cloning (that will soon be technically feasible though I think it should not be done on ethical grounds). Let us take a cell from a human hair follicle. It is treated so it can be totipotent again...{snipped for brevity}

My opponent finds it unethical (immoral) to manipulate a cell from a hair follicle to duplicate human life, yet he has no moral problem with the wholesale slaughter of human embryos, which, barring ill-health or misfortune, and without manipulation of any sort, are developing into mature adult human beings. I have difficulty determining what my opponent is using as a moral baseline, or moral standard, in light of such contradiction. Why is it immoral to manipulate human cells to duplicate, or clone human life, yet it isn’t immoral to kill human embryos or fetuses?

In describing how he perceives a society’s morality to work, my opponent stated “From two people upward we have a society with its rules (even if they're tacit). If someone breaks the rules, the others will do what it takes to protect themselves (stone him, jail him, fine him,...).� My opponent also stated that he finds the death penalty “abhorrent� because he “was raised to empathize with people who are about to lose their lives (they have but one life then it's all over).� Despite society “doing what it takes� to protect it’s citizens and serving justice, my opponent empathizes with one who has committed crimes heinous enough to warrant the death penalty because “they have but one life then it's all over.� Prometheus_fr claims this empathy is “good for the survival of our species.� If such empathy is good for the survival of our species, and if it is moral to extend this empathy to even those who are proven to be unfit to live in society, shouldn’t such empathy be extended to the innocent unborn? Don’t the unborn “have but one life then it's all over?� Sparing the guilty and slaying the innocent is terribly contradictory and arguably not the best strategy for species survival.

Considering these glaring contradictions, I argue that the moral system my opponent advocates in his argument is capricious and without foundation.

Let’s examine more closely the moral system Prometheus_fr advocates in his argument. I won’t quote his whole argument here - it can easily be reviewed in full in this thread. It can basically be reduced to this quote - “Do whatever you like in the pursuit of your happiness as long as you don't harm others.� My opponent goes on to argue that moral systems that attempt to eliminate a group of people, especially the innocent, “fail miserably.� These are interesting conclusions to reach in the defense of a moral system that allows abortion. My opponent concludes by stating that a moral system that keeps people “happy, educated and responsible� is superior to “all others that I know of.� This moral system, despite Prometheus_fr’s confident claims, is far inferior to the one I presented in my argument.

A superior moral system protects the individual’s rights to life, freedom, and the exercise of his or her free will while ensuring cooperation among other individuals with the same rights. Recall that my argument was that humans have intrinsic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Since these rights are intrinsic, they must take effect when a human being begins to exist, or the moment of conception. Despite fully half of my argument being based on these rights, my opponent studiously avoids the subject of rights throughout his argument. The only rights Prometheus_fr dares mention is the fact that he is “pro-choice,� which is synonymous with the “right to choose.� Even here my opponent doesn’t elaborate on these rights, and why this right should be granted. My opponent cannot agree that humans have intrinsic rights because to do so would be to admit that abortion kills an innocent person. His only option is to argue that human rights are granted by the segment of society that holds power. In fact, since my opponent argues that there is no immorality in aborting human beings, and actively condones abortion (“I myself am definitely pro-choice�), we actually have an example of one segment of society denying rights to another. Prometheus_fr argues that “If you discriminate against a part of the population when your own rights are not jeopardized, you should expect retaliation sooner or later.� Conveniently, the unborn are the weakest and most vulnerable in society, unable to retaliate.

My argument thus far establishes the fact that the moral system Prometheus_fr proposes is seriously flawed. The only rights mentioned are those to an abortion. Happiness, Education and Responsibility is presented as superior to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I argue that one is a foundation for a moral system. The other is a syllabus for a human sexuality class.

In an attempt to rebut my evidence that what abortion kills is a human being, Prometheus_fr makes a scientifically weak argument, often with unsupported or outright incorrect assertions. Here is the first quote that Prometheus_fr made that I would like to examine:

The statement "the zygote contains all the genetic information and material required to develop into an adult human, and this development is internally directed by the zygote, not the mother" is an incorrect extrapolation. Twins have identical genotypes but their phenotypes are somewhat different. If you examine twins you will notice differences both physically and intellectually. And they also develop different personalities. A more striking example is that of clones of mammals. Though they have the exact copy of their genitor’s genes, they show many differences (like different spots on their skin). The evolution of an embryo and then an individual is only partly dependent on the genotype. Even within the womb, environmental influences play an important role.

I stand by the statement my opponent attributes to me: "the zygote contains all the genetic information and material required to develop into an adult human, and this development is internally directed by the zygote, not the mother." Prometheus_fr states that this “is an incorrect extrapolation.� Does he offer any supporting evidence to back up the accusation that I am incorrectly extrapolating? No, he does not. Rather, he immediately discusses twins having the same genotypes but different phenotypes, and cloned mammals having “many differences.� The scientific fact is, however, that a zygote does have all the genetic information and material required to develop into an adult human. This is an empirically proven scientific fact that my opponent cannot dispute. The reader can refer to the quote I provided and cited from the biology textbook Life: The Science of Biology. Please note that this is from a college-level biology textbook, not from an anti-abortion source.

The evolution of an embryo and then an individual is only partly dependent on the genotype.

Here we see an example of pseudo-science, not real science. Perhaps this statement explains how my opponent finds “early� abortions moral while presumably later abortions are immoral (though, in both cases, the exact same organism gets killed). Embryos don’t “evolve,� they develop. An embryo isn’t one thing and an individual another - they are one and the same. This is an empirically proven scientific fact that my opponent cannot dispute.

Even within the womb, environmental influences play an important role.

Interestingly, here we have my opponent admitting that personality is influenced even within the womb. Logically, if my opponent is correct that embryos aren’t persons, this implies that personality develops before personhood is acquired, a novel scientific hypothesis.

Twins have identical genotypes and yet they are clearly two different individuals. Therefore, a unique set of genes is not necessary to make an individual. What’s more, an individual is not reducible to his genotype. A set of genes is not enough to make an individual endowed with all the chararcteristics of personhood.

Conveniently overlooked by my opponent is the scientific fact that before splitting into twins (triplets, etc.), the zygote/embryo is a unified, genetically unique individual organism. That the organism naturally split and is now two organisms in no way refutes the fact that it originally was a single, unique organism. Note that I quoted my opponent as stating “a bunch of genes in a couple of cells aren't enough to make an individual.� I responded, after quoting a college-level textbook on genetics An Introduction to Genetics (again, not a anti-abortion source) that “In fact, a "bunch of genes," in one cell, the zygote, are enough to make an individual person.� The true scientific fact of the matter is, genetic information (genotype) and genetic material (the cell, or zygote) are all that is needed to make an individual human being. This is confirmed by the glossary entry for the term zygote I provided from the same previously cited source, An Introduction to Genetics: “The diploid cell produced at fertilization by the union of the haploid gametes. Also the individual derived from this cell.� If my opponent has scientific evidence that a human being requires more than this to become an individual, he should present it.

A cell is not a member of any species (except for unicellular organisms). Biology only demonstrates that an embryo has the (genetic) potential to become a human being. The cells contained in a hair follicle also have a full set of human genes. But they are not human beings.

Prometheus_fr would be correct if we were discussing an individual cell from human skin, for example. In that case, the cell would be part of an organism belonging to the human species. However, a zygote is a unified, unique, self-directed cell with human chromosomal structure, human parents, and it is actively developing into a mature human being. Scientifically, the zygote most definitely is a member of the human species. Again, my opponent presents no supportive evidence for his assertion.

As for biology demonstrating that an embryo only has potential to become a human being, I argue that there are currently some six billion examples of empirical proof that embryos in fact mature into infants, adolescents, and adult humans. Once again, my opponent makes an unsupported assertion. He is correct, however, that the cells in a hair follicle are not humans. What he has not demonstrated is that zygotes are not human beings.

My opponent argues that “A zygote/embryo/early fetus is only living tissue with the capability to become a human being.� It would be interesting to learn, from a scientific standpoint, when the fetus exercises this capability to become human, inferring that some other biological thing can become a human being. Does my opponent offer supporting evidence that a fetus is only “living tissue� and not a human being? Predictably, he does not.

The difference between a human being and human tissue (a hair follicle, a liver, a bone,…) is conscience. Therefore an appropriate definition for the start of personhood is conscience. Human tissue without conscience is a biological thing and therefore not a person (per Webster’s definition).

My opponents “appropriate definition� is nothing more than philosophical conjecture, not science. The scientific difference between a human being and human tissue is not consciousness. The difference between the two is really quite simple: a human being is a whole, complete biological organism while human tissue is merely part of a human organism. As I have already demonstrated, a zygote is a complete biological organism, a scientific fact my opponent cannot dispute. The burden to prove a zygote or embryo is just “tissue� belongs to my opponent.

In light of the scientific fact that an zygote or embryo is a complete biological organism, my opponent’s capriciousness becomes evident. First, he uses a pseudo-scientific argument to define what abortion is killing, then he creates his own criteria, consciousness, to determine when a human being begins to exist. The facts are simple: a human being, a complete biological organism, begins at conception. Intrinsic rights, such as the right to life, as well as rights bestowed by society, belong to the organism, not to a property of the organism or a state that the organism occupies.

My opponent goes to great lengths to establish that consciousness is based in the brain, a fact that virtually no one disputes. Regardless, I will examine some of his supporting evidence to make a point.

Traumatic brain injuries often result in alteration of conscience (confusion, mood changes or even coma). They can also lead to changes of personality. The best known example is that of Phineas Gage in 1843. He survived a major brain injury caused by a 3-foot-long rod that ran through his head. Before the accident Gage was a quiet, mild-mannered man; after his injuries he became an obscene, obstinate, self-absorbed man.

Did Gage’s rights to life, freedom and the exercise of his free will change after this accident? No, they did not. Regardless of Gage’s personality changes, he still possessed the exact same intrinsic rights as he did prior to his accident. Gage’s altered consciousness had no bearing on these rights, because these rights belonged to the organism known as Gage, not to Gage’s state of consciousness.

The logical consequence: The fetus becomes an individual when it acquires conscience, that is to say when it has developped enough brain tissue to support it. This is a gradual process. The determination of when the fetus can really be considered a person is beyond the scope of this debate. Suffice to say that the brain starts developing during the third week and conscience certainly “appears� much later, when the brain is large enough.

How my opponent makes the logical leap from brain injuries causing changes in personality or difficulty in motor skills to concluding that consciousness determines individuality is not supported scientifically. In fact, despite his confident assertions about personhood, he goes on to say that determining “when a fetus can really be considered a person is beyond the scope of this debate,� when in reality the debate hinges on this very matter. My opponent has argued that the fetus is not a person, but now admits he isn’t really sure if a fetus is a person or not! Despite this uncertainty, my opponent asserts that within the superior moral system he describes, abortion is not immoral. I argue that a society with a superior moral system, unsure of when a human being comes into existence, would err on the side of caution and consider all abortions immoral. That my opponent admits he is unsure when a human being begins but decides that consciousness is the determining factor clearly shows the astounding capriciousness on which he has based his argument.

In this light, it becomes clear why my opponent felt a disclaimer regarding his position was necessary at the beginning of his argument.

Prometheus_fr has provided an argument that is contradictory, capricious, and scientifically unsupported and/or incorrect. I argue that he has not refuted a single point I made in defending my position, and I stand by my original argument in its entirety.

Furyus George

[French Prometheus]

I have decided to post my second response much earlier than planned.

I must say I was very suprised by Furyus George's second statement. His first statement was coherent and courteous (though of course I disagree with it). His second statement is neither. It is a long list of fallacies.

Why, if abortion kills something with no greater moral significance than a hair follicle, does my opponent think “most abortions should and could be avoided?� Why is a country with a lower abortion rate optimal? Why is “comprehensive and realistic� sex education needed? Why does my opponent attempt to disassociate himself from the very position he intends to defend? That one is “pro-choice� and not “pro-abortion� is a common refrain among those that are, in fact, pro-abortion. This tactic is nothing more that semantics meant to distort and diminish, as much for the speaker as for their audience, the truth behind abortion. I assert that this is because proponents of abortion know intuitively that what gets aborted is far more valuable that a hair follicle. What gets aborted is, in fact, a human being.

Abortions should be avoided because of the physical and psychological risks for the WOMAN. This has nothing to do with the embryo. I should add that the unjustified stigma associated with abortion often contributes to making it harder for the patients. Contraception is always preferable when available.

My opponent presents the often-heard argument that pro-choice means pro-death : we "know" that we're murdering children but that's OK because we're dishonest and have no respect for human lives. This is argumentum ad hominem.


My opponent finds it unethical (immoral) to manipulate a cell from a hair follicle to duplicate human life, yet he has no moral problem with the wholesale slaughter of human embryos, which, barring ill-health or misfortune, and without manipulation of any sort, are developing into mature adult human beings. I have difficulty determining what my opponent is using as a moral baseline, or moral standard, in light of such contradiction. Why is it immoral to manipulate human cells to duplicate, or clone human life, yet it isn’t immoral to kill human embryos or fetuses?

When I said "Let us make a thought experiment about human cloning (that will soon be technically feasible though I think it should not be done on ethical grounds)" I was of course referring to the cloning of a whole individual (i.e. reproductive cloning). That was the case in the thought experiment I suggested. I'm all in favor of therapeutic cloning as I have no qualm about manipulating cells (whether from an embryo or any other human tissue).

Instead of replying to my point #3, Furyus George goes on with another ad hominem attack.

WHEN DOES PERSONHOOD START IN THE CASE I PRESENTED IN POINT #3 ? There is no conception and yet we start with something that is not an individual (a hair follicle) and end with an individual (a baby).


If such empathy is good for the survival of our species, and if it is moral to extend this empathy to even those who are proven to be unfit to live in society, shouldn’t such empathy be extended to the innocent unborn? Don’t the unborn “have but one life then it's all over?�

But this is the very point at issue. The embryo is not an innocent unborn person. If I scratch my finger, I don't empathize with the cells destroyed either.


A superior moral system protects the individual’s rights to life, freedom, and the exercise of his or her free will while ensuring cooperation among other individuals with the same rights. […] Conveniently, the unborn are the weakest and most vulnerable in society, unable to retaliate.

Again this assumes the very point we are debating. This assumes that the embryo is an individual. If the embryo is a person then it is immoral to destroy it. We agreed on that so there's no use in dwelling on it.


My argument thus far establishes the fact that the moral system Prometheus_fr proposes is seriously flawed.

No, it does not but this is irrelevant in this debate. My moral system reaches the same conclusion as that of my opponent : the murder of an innocent person is morally wrong. In both moral system, if the embryo is an individual then abortion is wrong.


The scientific fact is, however, that a zygote does have all the genetic information and material required to develop into an adult human.

I have already given the obvious counter-example : twins. Twins have the same genes but they are two different individuals. Therefore an individual is not reducible to its genes.


Here we see an example of pseudo-science, not real science. Perhaps this statement explains how my opponent finds “early� abortions moral while presumably later abortions are immoral (though, in both cases, the exact same organism gets killed). Embryos don’t “evolve,� they develop. An embryo isn’t one thing and an individual another - they are one and the same. This is an empirically proven scientific fact that my opponent cannot dispute.

I thought this was evident from the context…Of course when I said "evolve" I meant "develop" not "evolve as in evolution of the species" (Webster's definition : evolve = to unfold or unroll; to open and expand; to disentangle and exhibit clearly and satisfactorily; to develop; to derive; to educe). Here it can be replaced with "develop" or "change gradually".


Originally Posted by Prometheus_fr
Even within the womb, environmental influences play an important role.

Interestingly, here we have my opponent admitting that personality is influenced even within the womb. Logically, if my opponent is correct that embryos aren’t persons, this implies that personality develops before personhood is acquired, a novel scientific hypothesis.

The personality of an individual is the result of many factors which are both genetic and environmental. Some of these factors influence the development of the embryo/fetus into an individual before the individual actually exists. This can also happen before conception. If a spermatozoon that carries a defect fertilizes an ovum then this may affect the embryo, and ultimately the child who will result from it. The individual depends, among other things, on what happened when he was "in the making" (and not yet an individual).


Conveniently overlooked by my opponent is the scientific fact that before splitting into twins (triplets, etc.), the zygote/embryo is a unified, genetically unique individual organism. That the organism naturally split and is now two organisms in no way refutes the fact that it originally was a single, unique organism.

Twinning occurs as late as the fourteenth day (it can happen later but in this case they're generally conjoined twins). Let's assume the embryo is a person. Let's call him John. What happens to John when it "splits"? Does it split into say Jack and Denis? Does John continues to exist and, for instance, Denis spontaneously appears? There is no second fertilization here. This is another reason why personhood cannot start at conception : even the number of (obviously different) persons that will come from a single embryo varies.


Note that I quoted my opponent as stating “a bunch of genes in a couple of cells aren't enough to make an individual.� I responded, after quoting a college-level textbook on genetics An Introduction to Genetics (again, not a anti-abortion source) that “In fact, a "bunch of genes," in one cell, the zygote, are enough to make an individual person.� The true scientific fact of the matter is, genetic information (genotype) and genetic material (the cell, or zygote) are all that is needed to make an individual human being. This is confirmed by the glossary entry for the term zygote I provided from the same previously cited source, An Introduction to Genetics: “The diploid cell produced at fertilization by the union of the haploid gametes. Also the individual derived from this cell.� If my opponent has scientific evidence that a human being requires more than this to become an individual, he should present it.

This is a poor attempt at argumentum ad verecundiam. Let's see the meaning of the word "derive" (Webster's dictionary) : "To flow; to have origin; to descend; to proceed; to be deduced." So the individual has its origin / is descended from the embryo. I certainly agree. But I still disagree that the embryo IS an individual (or is enough to make an individual, see above the "twin individuality" dilemma). Anyway, a definition found in a book is not an argument per se. And scientists sometimes make poor choices of wording too.

IF GENES ARE ENOUGH TO DEFINE AN INDIVIDUAL THEN WHY ARE TWINS TWO DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS WITH THE SAME GENES ?

Here (http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-Z/zygote.html) (at Northwestern University, Department of biochemistry, molecular biology and cell biology) they define a zygote as "the unique diploid cell formed by the fusion of two haploid cells (often an egg and a sperm) that will divide mitotically to create a differentiated diploid organism." It WILL create a diploid organism. It WILL eventually become an individual. But it is not one at conception. It is just a cell.


Prometheus_fr would be correct if we were discussing an individual cell from human skin, for example. In that case, the cell would be part of an organism belonging to the human species. However, a zygote is a unified, unique, self-directed cell with human chromosomal structure, human parents, and it is actively developing into a mature human being. Scientifically, the zygote most definitely is a member of the human species. Again, my opponent presents no supportive evidence for his assertion.

Yes I did. Defining personhood at conception is fallacious as shown in point #3 of my first response. Moreover, twins are living proof that it takes more than a set of genes to define an individual. Scientifically speaking or semantically speaking, an embryo is no more a human being than a peach pit is a peach tree. It can grow into one but it is not one. Misinterpreting a (somewhat ambiguous) definition from a science book is not equal to giving a scientific argument. Even if a book flatly defined an embryo as a person, that still would not be an argument. Just a faulty definition. An argument would go like this "an embryo is a person BECAUSE …". An then we could discuss the argument.


As for biology demonstrating that an embryo only has potential to become a human being, I argue that there are currently some six billion examples of empirical proof that embryos in fact mature into infants, adolescents, and adult humans. Once again, my opponent makes an unsupported assertion. He is correct, however, that the cells in a hair follicle are not humans. What he has not demonstrated is that zygotes are not human beings.

I do not have to demonstrate that zygotes are not "human beings" or persons. It is up to my opponent to demonstrate that they are. I have already rebutted the argument based on the uniqueness of the genotype (see above the counter-example of twins).


My opponent argues that “A zygote/embryo/early fetus is only living tissue with the capability to become a human being.� It would be interesting to learn, from a scientific standpoint, when the fetus exercises this capability to become human, inferring that some other biological thing can become a human being. Does my opponent offer supporting evidence that a fetus is only “living tissue� and not a human being? Predictably, he does not.

Words are human conventions. They do not necessarily reflect the nature of the things they represent. And of course they do not change the nature of reality. This is why I said in my previous statement "another" definition of personhood and not "the (ultimate)" definition of personhood after pointing out the inconsistency in my opponent's definition. In this debate we are trying to see if an embryo is similar to us in such a way that it should be entitled to the same rights. Semantics are not arguments.

An embryo is "at least" human tissue as it is a group of human cells. The question is whether it is more than that : a person. I argued that it is not as it doesn't have a functional brain. Even a whole adult body is no longer regarded as a "person" (entitled to the same rights as other living persons) when its brain is dead. We can switch off life support when the brain is no longer functional even though the rest of the body is still alive. We can remove (living) organs and give them to other people or we can just burn/bury the body. The rights that go with personhood presuppose a living brain (with at least some activity in it).

Whether said tissue can possibly become a person or not is quite irrelevant to its current status. A hair follicle cell can become a human being through cloning. That doesn't mean it should be given the same rights that pertain to individuals.


The scientific difference between a human being and human tissue is not consciousness. The difference between the two is really quite simple: a human being is a whole, complete biological organism while human tissue is merely part of a human organism. As I have already demonstrated, a zygote is a complete biological organism, a scientific fact my opponent cannot dispute.

Nothing has been "demonstrated". A mere definition is not an argument (see above). Furthermore, if a human being is a whole complete biological organism then that poses two problems:
1/ What about people who have been mutilated? What about those missing some organs, members,…? Is a woman who had a hysterectomy still a human being?
2/ Where's the heart of the one-cell embryo? Where is its spleen, its brain,…?

If my opponent means "a complete set of human genes" then that definition emcompasses every non-germinal cell.


In light of the scientific fact that an zygote or embryo is a complete biological organism, my opponent’s capriciousness becomes evident.

This is another example of unwarranted ad hominem. I am very disappointed. I expected better.


My opponent goes to great lengths to establish that consciousness is based in the brain, a fact that virtually no one disputes. Regardless, I will examine some of his supporting evidence to make a point.

I gave "another" definition of personhood that is based on consciousness and personality / individuality. This is what I called "conscience" (I realized after posting my first response that this word in English is much more specific than in French and I should have been more explicit about what I meant. I regret the ambiguity). I needed to show that it originates in the brain. This is obvious to many people but not all.


Gage’s altered consciousness had no bearing on these rights, because these rights belonged to the organism known as Gage, not to Gage’s state of consciousness.

These rights belong to the individual named Gage. When his consciousness eventually disappeard (i.e. when his brain died) he lost these rights. After the accident his consciousness was altered but still there.


How my opponent makes the logical leap from brain injuries causing changes in personality or difficulty in motor skills to concluding that consciousness determines individuality is not supported scientifically.

Science shows that the brain is the center of consciousness and personality. Therefore the definition I gave of personhood requires a brain which an embryo does not have. This definition is coherent and solves the twin individuality dilemma and cloning dilemma which the definition of my opponent does not. Words are mere conventions and are not "found" by science but created as needed. If the definition is absurd or does not correspond to reality (or what we can know of it through science), then it will induce those who use it into error. Labeling an embryo "a person" is a possible convention but it is incoherent and only obfuscates the deep differences between two things. An embryo is not the same as the individual it eventually becomes.


In fact, despite his confident assertions about personhood, he goes on to say that determining “when a fetus can really be considered a person is beyond the scope of this debate,� when in reality the debate hinges on this very matter.

No. The debate hinges on whether the one-cell embryo should be considered a person. If it is not then early abortion is not a murder. Whether it becomes a person after one week, one month or at birth is irrelevant in this debate. The topic here is not "when does abortion become murder" but "is abortion murder". In the latter case, the world "always" is implied. If there is a period of time after conception when the embryo/fetus is not a person then early abortion is not murder.


In this light, it becomes clear why my opponent felt a disclaimer regarding his position was necessary at the beginning of his argument.

Again, this is an ad hominem attack. It assumes that I'm dishonest.

In conclusion, my opponent did not answer the two objections I raised to his definition of personhood : what I called the twin individuality dilemma and the cloning dilemma. He has also not shown why my definition of personhood should be rejected.

[Furyus George]

Every human being, regardless of nationality, race, gender, age, political leaning or religious belief (or lack thereof) has, by very nature of their humanity, the right to life, to freedom and to the exercise of their free will. These fundamental rights are intrinsic in nature - they are not granted to us by human government. These fundamental rights form the basis for all other human rights, and all other human rights are specious at best absent this foundation. The right to work, the right to shelter, the right to live simply and peacefully are all illusory without the basic right to life. This issue is black and white. There is no grey area, no muddled middle ground in which to seek refuge. Either human beings have an intrinsic right to life, or the right to life is granted by other humans that wield power in society. We must settle in one camp or the other.

It is my position that the right to life is intrinsic to humanity, and the right to life cannot be denied while simultaneously staking a claim to a superior morality. Morals are meant as guidelines to insure that individual human behavior, while exercising one’s rights to life and liberty, is compatible with other members of society enjoying these same rights. A superior morality will always be built upon a foundation where human life is regarded as intrinsically valuable, with the right to life as the cornerstone.

Rights that are intrinsic to humanity, that belong to the very nature of a human being, must begin when a human being begins to exist. It is an empirically proven scientific fact that human beings begin life at conception. The genetically and biologically unique human organism that begins at conception is the exact same organism that eventually develops consciousness, that eventually learns to walk and talk, that eventually matures into an adult, that may reproduce and will die. At all points in this process of development, the organism is the same organism. It is not, at one point in development, one thing, and at another point in development a human being. Such a position may be philosophically debatable, but it is not scientifically supportable. As I stated in my first post, there has not been a time since your conception when you were not you.

The argument that identical twinning proves that an individual did not exist prior to the twinning event is false. Medical science does not completely understand the twinning process. It is not known that when twinning occurs, if A ceases to exist, giving rise to B and C, or if A continues to exist, while B splits off from A and begins to exist. What is known is that twinning is natural and internally directed, and that prior to twinning, a single, biologically and genetically complete human organism exists. At this stage of development, human beings are divisible, and can survive this division. At all points, pre- and post-twinning, a complete human organism or organisms are present, and this is scientifically irrefutable.

The issue has been raised concerning when an individual begins to exist during the procedure known as “cloning.� The answer is simple: once the nucleus from an adult cell has been inserted into an egg, it is given a jolt of electricity, thus beginning the internally directed process of cell division. Once this process has begun, a human being exists and has the right to life. This is consistent with my position on abortion. Consistency is crucial in defining morality. Thus, a superior moral system concludes that abortion is immoral, cloning is immoral, creating embryos for research is immoral, capital punishment is immoral, euthanasia is immoral, assisted suicide is immoral, and so on. The common thread between all these positions is the recognition that human life has intrinsic rights, intrinsic value, and should be treated with dignity and respect.

Restated, if an organism is at any point a human being, a 35 year-old man for example, the organism has at all points of existence been a human being. The individual, unique biological and genetic organism that is the 35 year-old man has always been the same individual, unique biological and genetic organism. This organism did not begin existence as a biological thing and become a human being during development.

Barring ill-health or misfortune, a human zygote will develop into a human embryo, which will develop into a human fetus, which will develop into a human infant, which will develop into a human child, which will develop into a human adolescent, which will develop into a human adult. Forgive me if this seems elementary, but that is exactly the point. It is elementary. More importantly, it is an undeniable scientific fact.

The argument that a human zygote or human embryo only has the “potential to develop into a human being� and is therefore not immoral to kill is scientifically false and illogical. “Potential,� as defined by Webster’s, is defined as “can be, but has not yet, come into being; unrealized, undeveloped.� The first problem with the use of the word “potential� in describing a zygote, embryo or fetus is that he or she has already come into being. He or she is not “undeveloped,� but rather he or she is developing. These are indisputable scientific facts.

The second, and most damning, problem with the argument that abortion only kills a potential human being is that it is the abortion that removes this supposed “potential.� The conclusion my opponent reached in his first post was “Abortion is the destruction of a group of cells which merely have the potential of becoming a person.� The conclusion can be more accurately stated as “Abortion is the destruction of a group of cells which merely have the potential of becoming a person if an abortion is not performed.� I should hasten to add that “group of cells� is scientifically false. Abortion is the destruction of a unified, complete, self-directed biological organism, or two, in the case of twins.

Conception is the beginning of the developmental process that continues beyond the womb through maturity and ends, ultimately, with death. Conception is the beginning of a unique individual human being (or human beings, if, as internally directed by the organism itself, the embryo splits into twins). As a unique, individual human being exists, it is logical to assert that a person exists. Obviously, a fully developed personality does not yet exist, and a fully developed personality won’t exist for many years. This in no way denies the fact that a human person, at exactly the level of development expected for his or her age, exists.

The argument that a person does not exist until one is conscious is flawed. First and foremost is the fact that human rights belong to human beings, not to states that humans are in or properties that humans possess. My opponent argues here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=1762498&postcount=120), in informal debate running concurrently with this debate, that “brain dead� humans have no rights.

Personhood requires a functional brain (i.e. with at least some activity in it). That's why we have no qualm about switching off the life support machine when someone is braindead even though the rest of the body is still alive (and could be kept alive artificially for a long time). When the brain is not functional, we consider that what's left of the person no longer has the right to live and we can destroy it (burn or bury it).

I daresay that when a human has suffered “brain death� the issue of whether or not to keep them alive artificially is medical in nature, and is not an issue of said person no longer having the right to live. Brain dead persons (and they are persons) who are alive naturally or being kept alive artificially do, in fact, have rights. For example, suppose a brain dead woman is in a hospital bed, being kept alive artificially. Does anyone have the right to sexually assault her? Does anyone have the right to her property? If one were to disconnect her life support without legal authority, would one not be committing murder? I speculate that it would be very difficult to find a sympathetic jury to the argument that this woman was not a person and had no right to live. My point is that human rights belong to the human organism, the human being, not to human consciousness.

Another serious flaw with the consciousness argument is whose consciousness is the standard? What is consciousness? What is desire? What is reason? What is self? What of dementia or the comatose, or even sleep? Who is the final arbiter of the existence of consciousness, and by what authority? Such questions only lead us down a nebulous philosophical path; they provide no scientific answer for when a “person� begins to exist. In fact, my opponent admits that even though he uses consciousness as a litmus test for personhood, he cannot state with any certainty when consciousness is present within a person!

More importantly, my opponent has not explained why it is moral to kill a being that has yet to develop consciousness. Can we assume that if a being has yet to develop the capability to recognize that he or she is being killed it is therefore acceptable to kill him or her? In light of the scientific fact that in early development humans haven’t developed the property of consciousness, but they will develop this property, how is it moral to kill them? The pre-conscious organism that is aborted would be the exact same organism later in development, with consciousness, if it were not aborted, if I may state the obvious. Why is it moral to kill this organism at one point, and abhorrent to kill this organism later?

The consciousness argument becomes more understandable when one considers how it benefits those who are pro-abortion. Dehumanizing the victims of abortion rationalizes their killing. This is done by asserting that a pre-conscious embryo is not human. This is done by referring to embryos, unscientifically, as “a bunch of cells.� This is done by claiming, unscientifically, that an embryo only has “potential� to become human. This is done by referring to abortion clinics as “women’s health centers.� This is done by claiming one is not pro-abortion, but rather “pro-choice.� Dehumanizing one segment of society that another segment wishes to subjugate or eliminate is not new. Jews were “parasites� in Nazi Germany. Blacks were “subhuman� until only recently in the United States. Non-believers are “dogs� in much of the Islamic world today. Once a population has been stripped of their humanity, it is far easier to gain acceptance for their elimination. This is exactly the tactic used today by proponents of abortion.

I argue that human beings have an intrinsic right to life, and this life begins, scientifically (the final arbiter of truth here at IIDB), at conception. It is immoral to deny this right to any human being, regardless of what stage in the developmental process they may reside. Either this is true, or someone else can decide if you have “the right to live,� reducing you to an “it� that “we can destroy.�

Furyus George

[French Prometheus]

This third post will conclude the formal debate.

I have given my definition of morality in my first post. My opponent asserts the existence of “fundamental rights� that transcend all human societies. This is an unproven assertion. But this is not the point at issue in this debate. These rights, whether they are bestowed upon us by a superior deity or merely the result of a social contract, only apply to individuals. As was shown in the debate an embryo is not an individual and is not entitled to these rights.

A potential individual is not an actual individual. The fact that the embryo can become a person at some point in the future does not change its current non-person status. A first-year medical student will hopefully become a doctor someday but until then he does not have the right to practise medicine. He is a potential doctor, gradually acquiring the medical skills which are expected of MD’s, but he is not an actual doctor yet. He does not have the same rights as one.

A person has to be distinguishable from others. Here lies the very essence of individuality which underpins the concept of personhood. An early embryo is a group of cells from which one, two or more persons can emerge. As long as this can occur, the process of individuation is not complete and there is no individual (in the ontological sense). Furthermore, twins are obvious evidence that a full set of human genes is not sufficient to make an individual. Likewise, twins show that a unique genotype is not necessary to make an individual. They have the same genotype but they are two distinct persons.

Twinning is not the only problem when starting personhood at conception (*) :

Just as it possible for a zygote to form two or more individuals before it is implanted in the uterus, it is also possible for it to not continue to develop at all, but rather just become a part of the placenta. (Shannon and Wolter 1990). It is estimated that more the 50% of the fertilized eggs abort spontaneously and never become children (see Gilbert 2003). Or, if the zygote splits into multiple zygotes, it is also possible for these to recombine before implantation. All of these possibilities are examples of the ways in which the individuation of the zygote is incomplete until it has been implanted in the uterus.

Two zygotes can merge and eventually become one single person. Considering them as two persons is absurd. Just as one individual cannot split into two, two individuals cannot dissolve into one. This negates the very idea of individuality.

Furyus George then continues with the “human life� fallacy. Any cell from a human being is human and alive. These two criteria are clearly insufficient to establish personhood. He also misuses basic scientific data to try and pass off his unsupported opinions as scientific facts. This is not the way science works.

Concerning the issue of human cloning, my opponent gives up his definition of personhood starting from conception (marked by the combination of the parents’ DNA) and conveniently makes it start at the onset of cell division. But cell division occurs for nearly every cell of the body. The fact that in one case it results in the same type of differentiated cells and in the other case it results in a full human being is irrelevant to the status of the initial cell.

Concerning the issue of brain death, my opponent wrote :

I daresay that when a human has suffered “brain death� the issue of whether or not to keep them alive artificially is medical in nature, and is not an issue of said person no longer having the right to live. Brain dead persons (and they are persons) who are alive naturally or being kept alive artificially do, in fact, have rights. For example, suppose a brain dead woman is in a hospital bed, being kept alive artificially. Does anyone have the right to sexually assault her? Does anyone have the right to her property? If one were to disconnect her life support without legal authority, would one not be committing murder? I speculate that it would be very difficult to find a sympathetic jury to the argument that this woman was not a person and had no right to live. My point is that human rights belong to the human organism, the human being, not to human consciousness.

A brain-dead human is medically and legally considered dead. As was discussed in another thread, it is no longer considered a person i.e. it no longer has the same rights as individuals in our society. That is why we can destroy what is left of the body. We can also take it apart and distribute organs to people who need them if the (living) person did not oppose it prior to his death. Disconnecting a brain-dead human is not murder. We cannot kill someone who is already dead. The legality of necrophilia is irrelevant. We may consider zoophilia illegal but that does not entitle animals to full human rights.

My opponent then rejects consciousness as an adequate criterion since we cannot pinpoint the exact time when it appears. But this confuses two issues : morality and legality. Let t0 be the time of conception and tc the time when consciousness appears. Let us assume that before time t1, there is clear evidence that the fetus has no consciousness and after time t2 there is clear evidence that the fetus has it. We can deduce that t1<=tc<=t2. If t1 is strictly greater than t0 then there is a non-zero period of time [t0;t1] during which abortion can be made legal. Actually, abortion is morally acceptable over the period [t0;tc] but since we cannot know tc, we have to legally restrict it to a shorter period of time. Of course there is the possibility that consciousness gradually appears over [tc1;tc2] with t1<tc1<tc2<t2 rather than instantaneously at tc. The reasoning is the same in this case.

What about [t1;tc]? Well, abortion is moral but illegal. Laws have to set up clear-cut limits for practical purposes. Having sex with someone who is younger by one day than the age of consent is not immoral but it is illegal. If the speed limit in a school area is 20mph, driving at 21mph is not immoral (it does not significantly increase the risk of collision with a pedestrian) but it is illegal.

I showed that consciousness cannot exist without a brain. An embryo has no brain therefore it has no consciousness and is not a person. The brain only starts developing after several weeks so there is at the very least several weeks during which abortion does not kill an individual. Actually a very simple and underdeveloped brain is not sufficient for higher mental functions like consciousness. A fetus does not have a recognizable EEG pattern (his neurons are not yet connected) before the 24th-27th week. The absence of this pattern is used by doctors to declare a person brain-dead (*).

We may not always be able to say whether consciousness is present (e.g. in some cases of coma). With such individuals we usually take a safe stance by considering them as persons entitled to full rights (including the right to die in more advanced countries where euthanasia is legal). But we can definitely say that consciousness is not present in an embryo (or early fetus) as it does not have a brain to support it.


Why is it moral to kill this organism at one point, and abhorrent to kill this organism later?

Because in one case it is not a person and in the other case it is one. Human rights only apply to persons.


The consciousness argument becomes more understandable when one considers how it benefits those who are pro-abortion. Dehumanizing the victims of abortion rationalizes their killing. This is done by asserting that a pre-conscious embryo is not human. This is done by referring to embryos, unscientifically, as “a bunch of cells.� This is done by claiming, unscientifically, that an embryo only has “potential� to become human. This is done by referring to abortion clinics as “women’s health centers.� This is done by claiming one is not pro-abortion, but rather “pro-choice.� Dehumanizing one segment of society that another segment wishes to subjugate or eliminate is not new. Jews were “parasites� in Nazi Germany. Blacks were “subhuman� until only recently in the United States. Non-believers are “dogs� in much of the Islamic world today. Once a population has been stripped of their humanity, it is far easier to gain acceptance for their elimination. This is exactly the tactic used today by proponents of abortion.

Here Furyus George uses a preposterous strawman, appeals to emotionalism and even hits Godwin’s law! This is very astounding in a formal debate not related to Nazism and after only 5 posts. I think this a record. By the way, abortion was strictly prohibited for German women in Nazi Germany. Women were regarded as incubators and had no sexual freedom at all.

Embryos are not persons and we do not dehumanize them any more than we dehumanize human hairs before shaving.

I have shown that abortion is the destruction of a group of cells which have not met the requirements for personal rights yet. Abortion is not immoral and certainly not the murder of a person. However, it carries both physical and psychological risks for the women concerned and should therefore be avoided when possible. The only way to decrease the number of abortions is through realistic sexual education, cheap and available means of contraception and a good healthcare system. But many pro-lifers seem more interested in furthering their political and religious agendas rather than really protecting individuals.

Prometheus in France

---------
(*) http://www.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
I would like to acknowledge Mountain Hare for this useful link.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This concludes the formal debate on abortion. We would like to thank Furyus George and Prometheus_fr for their participation in the debate. This thread will be closed.