this is truly the crux of the whole argument for pro-lifers. it's really that simple. we've been round and round on this one here. you either think it's a person deserving of rights or you don't. or you're not sure so you're willing to err one way or the other.
If it could answer, it would qualify as a "person," but until it is viable it only exists by leave of the woman carrying it. Once she decides it is unwanted, she has every right to have it removed.
Exactly. I am willing to "err on the side of caution" once the fetus could viably live outside the womb, but until then, it only exists at the whim of the woman carrying it.
Brain dead is medically dead and it looks like it will finally be considered legally dead as in the Terry Schiavo case. My point is that what seperates us from other animals and lifeforms is our capacity for self awareness and reasoning. If I cut off my finger and keep it in a nutrient solution that I change regularly I could keep the cells in my finger metabolizing for quite awhile but no one would consider that as being a living human. In the same way I have a hard time accepting a clump of cells that make up an embryo human. Its when we are conscious, and I don't just mean not asleep, then I would say that we are human. Otherwise we're not very different from a mouse or the pig that you had for lunch since we have almost all of the same genes as them.
You are welcome to think so, but to me, and to most of the women who have abortions (at least the ones I have met), it is NOT a "life and death" issue. Since we don't believe that the fetus is a "life" or "alive," removing that fetus doesn't rise anywhere near a "life and death" issue. And you have NO right to force YOUR OPINION down the throats of people who do not believe the same thing you do.
I see your point but you can't deny that we often place lifestyle over lives. Choosing to live in a "free" society with innate rights is a profound lifestyle choice and given that we fought a war to gain that lifestyle shows that we consider that to be much more important than the lives of our enemies and even worth sacrificing our own lives. Heck if you believe GW Bush' rhetoric we should be killing more people and laying our soldiers lives on the line more often so that others can enjoy the lifestyle of liberty and democracy that we have. I agree its a gray area and we can certainly have a long debate about when its right to kill and when its not but so as long as you believe that its right to sacrifice lives for the sake of a free society its disingenuous to accuse others of valuing lifestyle over life.
Your sawed-off finger has no chance of becoming a functional human being, while that "clump of cells" in utero is on track to become nothing other than a human being. Even the most insubstantial, deformed human being is a human being nonetheless.
Yet you have the right to force those forceps and that saline solution on a human child? What's wrong with this picture? That fetus has a heartbeat, a brainwave, fingerprints, emotional reactions, and unique DNA yet you still want to assert that it's not alive. I know this is a wasted exercise, but if the notion of abortion did not even exist in our minds, would you have any use for your definition of being alive?
Giddy at the first moment the sperm fertilizes the egg there are no finger prints, heartbeats, emotional reactions that you mentioned. The things you mentioned do occur, but it depends on what point during the pregnancy you are talking about.
Not necessarily. Not all of the cells in an embryo end up as a part of the fetus. Many will form the amniotic sac and placenta. Further its not a guarentee that the embryo will develop beyond that a clump of cells or even come to term as there is always a significant chance that there will be a miscarriage. Another key point there is "in utero" which implies a certain set of conditions that require it to become human. With cloning any nucleated cell could become a whole organism given the right conditions. Under that reasoning that clumps of cells given the right condition are human then anytime you cut yourself you're aborting humans. Leaving aside cloning we can do fertilization outside of the human body so would you consider embryos that have been fertilized in a petri dish and then frozen to still be human and that killing them would be murder or are you only considering that when they're planted in the womb? Given that we also have the capability to implant embryos into other wombs would you consider it abortion if a host mother chose to terminate a pregnancy since its not her offspring?
I don't force anything on anyone. The doctor doesn't force anything on anyone. You are welcome to your opinion that the clump of cells is a "human child" if you wish, but you have no right to force that opinion on anyone else. The fetus, particularly during the time when I believe that abortions should be performed (4-6 weeks) doesn't have any of the things you describe with the exception of "unique DNA." To me and to the women who choose abortion, the fetus is not alive and never will be. Again, you have no right to force your definition of "life" on anyone else. Would you?
You're a strange man, giddyup. I don't even know what that means. The animals you eat also had a heartbeat, a brainwave, emotional reactions, and unique DNA. All they're missing are the fingerprints. And the way they are put to death is far more brutal and painful than an abortion. But I didn't mean to derail. Far be it from me to push an ethical position regarding the sanctity of life in a thread about ethics and the sanctity of life. Keep on keepin on.
The only one there I would agree with is brainwave (higher brain function) since emotional reactions would be secondary to that which is my dividing line. A corpse has unique DNA and fingerprints and given medical technology you can keep a heart beating for quite a while even outside of the body. Anyway as FB has pointed out none of the rest of that stuff appears until weeks after fertilization and only under the proper conditions in a womb. So if those are your standards would you support things like the abortion pill which prevents embryo implantation to the wall of a womb, destroying (or harvesting stem cells) from embryos fertilized outside of a woman's body and never implanted into a womb, and abortions prior to development of any of those features that you mention?
<b>Originally posted by Sishir Chang Not necessarily. Not all of the cells in an embryo end up as a part of the fetus. Many will form the amniotic sac and placenta. Further its not a guarentee that the embryo will develop beyond that a clump of cells or even come to term as there is always a significant chance that there will be a miscarriage.</b> That's fine; that's the natural order probably beyond our comprehension. At least it's not andymoon's human whim... <b>Another key point there is "in utero" which implies a certain set of conditions that require it to become human. With cloning any nucleated cell could become a whole organism given the right conditions. Under that reasoning that clumps of cells given the right condition are human then anytime you cut yourself you're aborting humans.</b> Another argument for another time when we catch up with that notion of technology. <b>Leaving aside cloning we can do fertilization outside of the human body so would you consider embryos that have been fertilized in a petri dish and then frozen to still be human and that killing them would be murder or are you only considering that when they're planted in the womb?</b> I can go either way on that one. My main concern is the embryo conceived in the womb by a consentual act that is then abandoned to other concerns. <b>Given that we also have the capability to implant embryos into other wombs would you consider it abortion if a host mother chose to terminate a pregnancy since its not her offspring?>/b> I would still have a problem there because it is a human being on track for a human birth. To eschew that is way more callous than just eating meat...
<b>Originally posted by andymoon I don't force anything on anyone. The doctor doesn't force anything on anyone. You are welcome to your opinion that the clump of cells is a "human child" if you wish, but you have no right to force that opinion on anyone else.</b> Again you are leaving one person out of the mix. <b>The fetus, particularly during the time when I believe that abortions should be performed (4-6 weeks) doesn't have any of the things you describe with the exception of "unique DNA." To me and to the women who choose abortion, the fetus is not alive and never will be. Again, you have no right to force your definition of "life" on anyone else.</b> My definiton of life saves what you may at best call "potential lives." Your definition empowers the dissolution of those same potential lives. The fetus certainly "will be alive" if you just leave it the hell alone! <b>Would you?</b> I have no use for your definition now or ever.
