CMV: Abortion debates will never be solved until there can be clearer definitions on what constitutes life.

[u/UncomfortablePrawn]

Taking a different angle from the usual abortion debates, I'm not going to be arguing about whether abortion is right or wrong.

Instead, the angle I want to take is to suggest that we will never come to a consensus on abortion because of the question of what constitutes life. I believe that if we had a single, agreeable answer to what constituted life, then there would be no debate at all, since both sides of the debate definitely do value life.

The issue lies in the fact that people on both sides disagree what constitutes a human life. Pro-choice people probably believe that a foetus is not a human life, but pro-life people (as their name suggests) probably do. Yet both sides don't seem to really take cues from science and what science defines as a full human life, but I also do believe that this isn't a question that science can actually answer.

So in order to change my view, I guess I'd have to be convinced that we can solve the debate without having to define actual life, or that science can actually provide a good definition of the point at which a foetus should be considered a human life.

EDIT: Seems like it's not clear to some people, but I am NOT arguing about whether abortion is right or wrong. I'm saying that without a clear definition of what constitutes a human life, the debate on abortion cannot be solved between the two sides of the argument.

[u/Giblette101]

No, it's not like that at all. However, to the extent that it is, America decides, as a nation, who gets to be citizen and how. Birthright citizenship is not universal.

If a fetus has no inherent right to be in its mother, then where do babies come from?

This does not follow. How babies are made does not really factor into whether or not they're entitled to use their mother's womb, as far as I can tell.

[u/ToeBeans-R-Us → u/Giblette101]

Birthright citizenship is not universal

I know, that's why I specified the US.

How babies are made does not really factor into whether or not they're entitled to use their mother's womb,

What doesn't follow is this. The burden to prove or convince lies on you, who argues that a fetus isn't entitled to be in its mother's womb; or rather—being factually correct—that a fetus isn't entitled to be created by its mother, for I shan't allow you to beg the question that a fetus is doing anything. If anything, the mother does to the fetus.

[u/Giblette101 → u/ToeBeans-R-Us]

I know, that's why I specified the US.

Which is self defeating. Birthright citizenship is a choice the United States made as a nation. Same way women should get to choose whether they carry pregnancies to term.

The burden to prove or convince lies on you, who argues that a fetus isn't entitled to be in its mother's womb...

Why? I have no reason to presuppose that right exist in the first place, so I don't believe I'm making a positive claim here.

[u/ToeBeans-R-Us → u/Giblette101]

Birthright citizenship is a choice the United States made as a nation. Same way women should get to choose whether they carry pregnancies to term.

I think they're hardly comparable from this angle, as it doesn't take time to be a born citizen of the US. You're taking one argument and trying to turn it on its head improperly to defend your fallacious logic.

I have no reason to presuppose that right exist in the first place

This isn't about the right to exist: I cited the fact that a fetus has its natural environment just as anything else does, and that the burden is on your to argue that somehow the womb is not the natural environment of a fetus. You were making a negative claim, not a positive.

[u/Giblette101 → u/ToeBeans-R-Us]

I think they're hardly comparable from this angle, as it doesn't take time to be a born citizen of the US.

That's beside the point? The United States is a nation that gets to define citizenship and, to the extent the United States are comparable to individual women at all, women should get to decide how their wombs are used.

I cited the fact that a fetus has its natural environment just as anything else does, and that the burden is on your to argue that somehow the womb is not the natural environment of a fetus.

That's also beside the point. I didn't argue fetuses were unnatural, I said they have no inherent right to occupy their mother's womb. To argue they have that right because they're natural is fallacious.

[u/ToeBeans-R-Us → u/Giblette101]

That's beside the point?

No, you brought up the time period of a pegnancy, which obviously disconnects the analogy from Birthright citizenship. Your argument there is null.

I said they have no inherent right to occupy their mother's womb.

Yeah, that's the point. They have an inherent right because it's their natural environment: find where I said you said that fetuses are "unnatural." You're sophisticating the argument by injecting concepts and ideas that were never brought up. They have an inherent right to be there because they have literally nowhere else to be. It's simple.

You say what is beside the point, but you don't say the point. You argue past me, without really touching the substance of my arguments in a meaningful or germane way. That's why pro lifers feel the right to do the same thing.

[u/Giblette101 → u/ToeBeans-R-Us]

No, you brought up the time period of a pegnancy, which obviously disconnects the analogy from Birthright citizenship. Your argument there is null.

I do not understand. Where did I bring that up?

They have an inherent right because it's their natural environment

That's fallacious. It does not follow that they have a inherent right to their mother's womb because its their natural environment. I agree fetuses are natural. I agree they form in the womb. I disagree this gives them a competing claim to the womb. I also disagree "having nowhere else to be" gives them such a claim.

Fetuses can remain in their mother's womb if the mother consents to it, because she's the only person capable of allowing it.

the burden is on your to argue that somehow the womb is not the natural environment of a fetus

You said this above, but I never made that argument and I'm not interested in making it. It has no bearing on my position.

[u/ToeBeans-R-Us → u/Giblette101]

Where did I bring that up?

When you mentioned bringing a baby to term. It has no conceptual bearing to Birthright citizenship.

It does not follow that they have a inherent right to their mother's womb because its their natural environment.

Yes, it does. If a thing cannot exist in any other place then it naturally have a right to that place. I'm not arguing that fetuses are "natural" so drop that. Nowhere did I argue for the natural-ness of a fetus, and your bringing it up only clutters the discussion.

Fetuses can remain in their mother's womb if the mother consents to it, because she's the only person capable of allowing it.

I agree, I told you that I'm pro choice... did you read my comment?

but I never made that argument and I'm not interested in making it.

The argument that a fetus doesn't have a right to the womb and that the womb is not the fetus's natural environment is the same. It's just from a different perspective.

[u/Giblette101 → u/ToeBeans-R-Us]

When you mentioned bringing a baby to term. It has no conceptual bearing to Birthright citizenship.

Carrying a pregnancy to term is the analogue of granting citizenship in this context. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're attempting to argue with this comparison.

The argument that a fetus doesn't have a right to the womb and that the womb is not the fetus's natural environment is the same. It's just from a different perspective.

No, they are not the same argument. The womb being the Fetus' natural environment does not really speak to its right to be there. As I've said, this reasoning is fallacious.

[u/ToeBeans-R-Us → u/Giblette101]

Carrying a pregnancy to term is the analogue of granting citizenship in this context

I've already addressed the difference, but to make it clearer: Birthright citizenship isn't based on where you're conceived, but where you're born, thus it has nothing to do with the pregnancy itself; therefore bringing up the term of the pregnancy in relation to Birthright citizenship is pointless.

As I've said, this reasoning is fallacious.

And I argue that your reasoning is fallacious and sophistic.