Good God, what a silly argument. As I have repeatedly stated, once the fetus can survive being removed from the mother, it is a "life." As soon as it is at a point where someone OTHER than the mother can care for it, the mother should not have a right to terminate.
Nope, he does not have any right to decide. His rights ended when he decided not to use effective birth control.
andy -- what you just said doesn't even reflect abortion laws as they exist in this country. again...abortions are not allowed at certain points of the pregnancy...that has zero, zilch, nada to do with its dependency on its mother. your rationale for this makes zero sense in light of the laws or the science governing this issue. if the policy is that as long as the baby is dependent on its mom for life...then that is the case until it takes its first breath. are you saying that a woman should have the right to abort a baby she's brought to term but just has not been born yet? because that's exactly where your argument is leading.
not so silly considering the practice is carried out in america and around the world...we call them late-term abortions or partial-birth abortions. so if you can remove the baby and it can live on its own,then it's illegal to abort? ok...so as i understand it, many premature babies don't live. premature babies would be born in the second trimester...currently it's illegal to abort a baby in the second trimester. so you would give further rights to the mother than those conferred through roe v. wade?
I am not trying to reflect the laws, just my beliefs. The significant bans on abortion today are on late term abortions where the child COULD potentially be extracted and live without the umbilical. In my mind, that is the line, if a fetus CAN survive outside the mother. No, read my posts and you will see that I believe that once it is POSSIBLE for the baby to survive without the umbilical cord attachment to the mother, THEN it is a "life."
And this practice is (and should be) illegal in most parts of the country (except for medical reasons). Personally, that is where the moral "line in the sand" is for ME. At that point, it is a moral issue because the baby could be raised by adoptive parents. Besides, as you mentioned, that practice is ALREADY illegal, obviating the need for a more extensive ban.
In your own words that is a "silly" argument. Why doesn't the mother's rights end when SHE decides not to use effective birth control? The vast majority of preganancies are a two way street - both parties share responsibility for the conception.
I agree, both parties are responsible for using contraception (which is also opposed by many anti-abortionists). The difference is that the man can just leave his "mistake" behind and (if she gets pregnant) the woman cannot. At that point, she has to decide which medical procedure to undergo, abortion or prenatal care.
Again you make a sweeping generalization about anti-abortionists. The only contraceptions I oppose are abortificients. Prevention is the key. I don't believe the man can legally just leave his baby behind. Doesn't the mother have a legal right to child support? This seems fair to me. So when the technology reaches a point where the baby can be removed from a test tube and survive, then abortion can be outlawed. Or if the zygote can be taken out and implanted into another female, and she carry it to term, we can outlaw abortion. Kinda sad that you want to define life based on the level of technology we are at, but at least in the near future the argument will be over and abortion will be outlawed.
Actually, I am being very careful not to make those generalizations now. I did use the word "many" in my statement and if it doesn't apply to you, don't take it to heart. If the mother chooses to bear the child, yes, he is obligated. If she chooses not to, he can just leave the mistake behind as he is not legally obligated to pay for the abortion. I agree. Once we have the technology to make it a choice of "do I bring this pregnancy to term or do I give it up for someone else to raise," abortion could go away. Then, women would STILL have their right to choose what happens to their body. Many definitions have changed as technology has improved. At one time, the Earth was defined as a flat piece of land, but technology changed that definition.
But the Earth was still round, even though people mistakenly thought that it was flat........a life is still a life, no matter how you want to define it for convenience.
Welllll... Again, this is argued (and has been for thousands of years) for more than the sake of convenience. Here are some options of when a life is a life: 1) At conception. Hardly distinguishable from a yeast cell, but the new DNA has been formed. 2) At the start of measurable brain waves and dreaming. I think is circa 6 or 7 months. (This one makes the most sense to me personally). 3) At the point when the foetus could live on its own outside the womb. (Very sensible). 4) At birth. As natural and clear-cut a definition as any. This is when a being is finally physically separate from its mother. The obvious downside to this, which sparks so much of our discussion, is that there is very little physical difference in the pre-birth and post-birth baby here. 5) At the point when a human is fully capable of rational thought. Aristotle said this was about age four or so, and, (if I recall reading this correctly), he fully advocated killing any baby or child before age four if the parents saw fit. So millenia of debate can't be boiled down to laziness and convenience, if you ask me. But maybe I have too much respect for the millions of people who've thought about this and the millions of women who become pregnant and feel a part of their bodies slowly become a new and eventually separate body.
The same could be said for your opinion since there is no way to PROVE what you believe. MadMax made the point about technology changing definitions and I was simply pointing out that it has happened throughout history. Just because a definition isn't true doesn't mean that it is not accepted as the definition, at least until someone PROVES that the definition is false. You do not have any way to prove your assertions about when life begins any more than I can, therefore, we must protect the rights of women to choose what happens to their bodies. This right is sacrocanct if you believe in the bible, which cedes control of the "temple" to each person. The greater evil would be causing poor women to have to undergo a medical procedure without the supervision of licensed, legal medical personnel. This WILL happen if abortion is banned, just look at history and you will see.
that's why technology is so important for this argument, B-Bob. yes, aristotle believed as he believed...but he wasn't privy to ultrasound...(not sure it would have changed his mind!)...people in generations past didn't get to see the baby in utero respond to stimuli...that's a HUGE difference. the tone of this argument has changed a ton just since the 1970's. much of that, i believe, is driven by technology. what we know now that we didn't know then about the development of babies before birth.
see..this is where you and i split ways BIG TIME! if we don't know when life begins, you want to err on the side of protecting a woman's right to her body. if we don't know when life beings, i want to protect the life that is separate and apart from the mother...the separate being that lives inside her. i'm concerned much more with playing loose and fast with human life than i am the rights of the mother. my rights are super...but i have no right to kill another unless it's self-defense. the greater evil, to me anyway, is playing loose and fast with human life...and acting like that's okay.
For what it's worth, and because it's interesting, I don't think Aristotle would have changed his mind based on ultrasound information. He was arguing rational thought and when humans could be declared definitively different from animals. Basically, for him, two-year old human = smart barnyard animal, at best. Hard to argue this for most of the 2-yr-olds I know.
Yeah, Madmax, it was a different time. I believe Athenians would leave the occasional baby on a hilltop if it wasn't what they wanted (male and/or healthy). Aristotle personified atoms, thought women were biologically flawed men, and contributed many other stupid-sounding gems. But, for my money, his Nichomachean Ethics is simply an amazing and important book. Whatever else, it's consistent and thought-provoking. What he might say to the current discussion, finally, is this: "I applaud your investigating this issue thoroughly, but why don't you people examine the rest of your lives and choices with the same scrutiny?"
Are you using the following from Corinthians to justify abortion? "Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and that temple you are." - 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 If not, would you please direct me to the scripture that references the body as a "temple" that you are referring to?
You are also only considering the theory without considering the reality of the situation. In theory, banning abortion would make it more difficult to find someone to perform it. In reality, prohibition (of anything) does not decrease availability, it only increases price, danger, and societal harm. Why do you think it is your right to tell someone that they HAVE to bring to term and bear a child only to give it away? Why do you think that you have any rights at all when it comes to decisions that should be between a woman and God? Don't you think that women who have abortions suffer enough without having to sneak into a back alley abortionist to have an unsupervised, unsanitary medical procedure or be thrown into jail? Again, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO FORCE YOUR MORALITY ON ANYONE ELSE!
