Over the course of history, there have been those who thought that other gene poolss were less than human. Does that give the former the power of life and death over the latter? I doubt you would conclude that. To say that the creature growing in your wife's womb is anything but a human is playing god. Don't give me that sentient BS. That is just a word-game to justify the termination of a pregnancy. Leave the little ones alone.
Where is the connection between: and abortion/anyone's stance on it? They're clearly different cases - one involves people who have actually been born. If you can't see the difference between that and racism, or whatever "there have been those who thought that other gene poolss were less than human" refers to, then we're going to have to agree to disagree. Of course, we're going to have to anyway. That's an awfully flippant way to dismiss an argument. And condescending. And... let's just say that it must be nice to be so sure that everyone who disagrees with you is so very, very wrong. Awww.
The convolution is above. I can understand the argument a potential human being fundamentally deserves protection. However, the “responsibility” jargon doesn’t fly. Is a rape victim responsible for carrying to term the outcome of the crime against her? What about mentally, intellectually or educationally deficient women who don’t know where babies come from? Moreover the whole personal responsibility issue has no place in medical ethics and medical decision making. Does a former alcoholic get a liver transplant if it is needed to survive? Does a smoker with lung cancer get the best and most expensive chemotherapy available? The answers are “Yes” and “Yes”--we disregard personal responsibility in making life or death decisions. So stick to the “all potential life is sacred” argument, that is a reasonable place to defend the pro-life position from. And then some (like me) have to come to grips with weighing that position as well as some others (what are the mothers’ rights and other societal consequences) in coming up with a policy position--no abortions period, abortions with restrictions, unrestricted abortions. But the minute someone brings up “personal responsibility” in the context of this debate it is clear it to me their rhetoric is akin to what is also driving the abstinence only programs “chastity movement” rather than using sound science or disciplined ethical reasoning in supporting their position.
<b>Someone needs to stick up for the unborn... as well as for others who cannot speak for themselves (the elderly, handicapped, children, etc.). Unless you just want to propose a world without morals at all. I too am surprised that most animal-rights activists are pro-choice. If an animal's life is so precious... and I'm not denying that it is... I wonder why you wouldn't feel the same about a human's life.</b> In a moral world, we wouldn't have starving children in Africa. We wouldn't have AIDS wiping out millions of lives while drug companies argue over the cost of medication to countries who can barely afford it. In a moral world, a woman wouldn't be beaten by her spouse or boyfriend every 15 seconds. In a moral world, we wouldn't have homeless families living on the street while we argue about the best way to feed and clothe them. In a moral world, unwed mothers who make up a large portion of those getting abortions wouldn't have to face the stigma that comes with the title because we would support them in their time of need and prosecute the fathers who refuse to live up to their responisibility. I am not an animal-rights activist. I don't choose to eat meat for my reasons. I don't ask that you do anything different. I haven't lobied to change your life. In this case, I do not believe that a fetus is a life until it is able to sustain life on its own without the protection of the womb. As a result, I don't view it as sentient life. Once a life is able to sustain itself without the support of the mother's protective womb (or whenever science can determine it can sustain it), then, for me, it becomes a living, sentient being.
Maybe a man can explain this to me because I am interested to hear how some of you formed your stance on this issue. I understand the moral argument for either sex. And it's pretty easy to see why a woman would be pro-choice because it is her body. But the men who are pro-choice, do y'all just understand their position or is it something else? And to anyone that believes people performing abortions are playing God, do you view all other doctors this way, because they interfer with human's lives everyday?
The issue of abortion rests on no less a question than "When does life begin?", since I have absolutely no idea beyond the moment of birth where life begins, I have absolutely no opinion on abortion, and will continue to do so until someone can prove where life begins.
OK, here's a moral curve ball: A geneticist creates a genetic human being in a test tube. He then loses funding for whatever project it relates to. He has the choice of either carrying out the project (carrying it to term) of his own devices/capabilities, but having no funding to support that (or the child), or dumping the genetic gook down the drain. The genetic sludge is in the equivalent of the first trimester. What does he do? Who would have responsibility for the child, since it has no parents and no funding? Is the scientist the "parent", and is he obligated to fund its first 18 years? It all boils down to $. If the $ isn't there, then you don't want to have the kid. BTW, what "right" to life does this child have? It's still a "child" genetically. Who gave it that right? He who giveth, taketh away... But the vast majority of abortions occur because the parents simply can't afford to bring the child up. How fair is it to bring a child into a world of poverty, when a few years later another can be brought into a more secure environment by the same parents? As long as the abortion is carried out in the first trimester, it can't even be classified as a human being - it's just a genetic slop that will become human if left alone. But it's not a human any more than the smodge the scientist would have to dump down the drain... In the absence of abstinence, abortion is a necessary evil.
What is all this talk about moral curveballs and the like. Why is nobody comfortable enough to throw a slider or a changeup? Seriously though, I think abortions should be legal until the fetus can be said to be sentient.
Sounds good. When exactly is that? At conception, after 3 months, after the second trimester, after it is 2 years old? Is a mentally r****ded person sentient? What about if I knock you unconscious, are you sentient then? (according to the Random House Dictionary you wouldn't be sentient) Where do you draw the line?
The argument I don't understand is that "more children don't need to be born into poverty". We don't always have much in common here on cc.net, but we're all former fetuses. At one time, you were at the mercy of your mother for survival. Can any of you honestly say that you would rather have been aborted? Would you prefer not to exist at all rather than to start out with a few disadvantages? Life is precious. Take care of it. If you can't support it for 18 years, fine. You don't exactly see babies starving on the streets here in the U.S. Help is available. But don't kill it... (sorry MadMax, it was bound to turn into a debate... you know how these hot-button issues are...)
<b>puedlfor</b>: I have seen my 4 kids hearts beating long before I ever had the chance to feel the rhythm with my skin. <b>Princess</b>: It is the willful and deliberate termination of an innocent life that I object to not just simple interference ... like a bypass surgery. <b>Jeff</b>: Your definition of what constitutes a sentient life (and all who agree with it) is costing millions of innocent children their chance at life because that kind of thinking has legally justified the abortion mills. Unwed mothers need to find a better solution to their problem; killing the problem is a horrific action and shameful. <b>haven</b>: What is "worthless" about the comment: leave the little ones alone. I think it sums up the predicament very powerfully. Kind of makes you uncomfortable, doesn't it? Good. <b>DesertScar</b>: You sure use that word "potential" a lot. How about if we just say life instead of "potential life." That changes everything. How is it possible for a simple statement to be convoluded? You're right, medical ethics should not be confused with personal responsibilities. That is why I VEHEMENTLY OBJECT to the pro-Abortion crowd dragging medical ethics into the fray by trying to figure out where the bar belongs on the onset of human life. Life begins at conception. Any other determination of that notion has some self-serving reason behind it to justify abortion. I have been over-enthusiastic. I'm not against every abortion. In instances where the mother's life is at risk and medical advice would have her consider abortion, I have no problem with that. I'm truly conflicted about rape victims, too, because the child is innocent and the mother has been traumatized. My real objection is to the casual abortions. Whyin the world is "personal responsibility" not a serious consideration? In what other areas of human activity do you choose to drop it as a pre-requisite for behavioral choice? Pro-Choicers ride the coat-tails of the complex cases to keep their abortion on demand conveniently available. <b>Zac D</b>: You wrote this in response to Isabel: "...because some people just don't think that it is a human life. It's almost that simple." That sounds like something the Nazis used to say about the Jews or The Klan about the black Americans in the south. Yeah, different argument but same conclusion. You say I'm being flippant? You are the one casting thumbs down based on which side of the womb a child is on. If absolutely denying the autocracy of such a decision is being flippant, then I'll be flippant... although I think staunch defender of the innocent is more apt.
So you probably would side with that lady that drowned her kids right. After all "He who giveth, taketh away..." right? Maybe your parents can come over and kill you in your sleep. That has to be the WORST pro-death argument that I have ever heard.
Millions of "potential lives" (or just plain "lives") die every year and it has nothing to do with human manipulation - it has to do with nature. The ratios range from 3-1 to 5-1 with embryos "making it" inside the woman. In other words, every time a woman gets pregnant (or even when she does not) 3-5 potential lives are terminated. That sucks.
giddyup: We aren't ever going to agree on this one so I'm just going to leave our discussion alone. You feel however you need to feel and I'll do the same. It's pointless arguing over this. First, I believe in reincarnation, so I believe that I have pre-chosen both my birth and my death as a way to learn. I may have been aborted at one point in the past. I don't know at the moment. Second, when you say that we don't exactly see babies starving on the streets here in the US, what streets are you talking about??? Every day, over 1 million children go without a meal on the streets of the United States because their families are homeless. Those are the facts. How exactly do you define "starving?"
It's not possible to scientifically make the argument that blacks or Jews are the same nonfeeling lump of cells that fetuses (up to a certain point) are. Different argument, irrelevant conclusion. Mischaracterization. The "side of the womb" bit was solely to discriminate abortion from your comparison to racism. Wow...
And just because mommy squirted the kid out makes it a self sustaining being? What about kids that are born premature that have to live on machines? They wouldnt survive unless they were hooked up to those machines. What about after that child is born. Just because it is born doesnt mean that it is self sustaining. Without someone to do everything for them, they would not survive. Anyone that has ever had children know that children rely on you just as much after they are born as when they were in mommy still growing. How about people be responsible before the fact and then they dont have to worry about coathangers. I think that it is pretty naive and ignorant to make a statement that unlawful abortions would be in trailer parks. Here is a grand idea. If you cant do the time, dont do the crime. Stop having sex if you cant be responsible and/or if you cannot support the child. I do not feel sorry for these people one bit. Keeping your legs closed and your pecker in your pants does not cost a thing. If you just cant help yourself, then go get free condoms. Anyone can get them. Double wrap that baby. To say that personal responsibility is not relevant in this discussion is ridiculous. You dont want it in the discussion because it blows Pro-Killing stance out of the water. And if a smoker gets lung cancer, I dont think I should pay for that crap either.
