AdornedImperious said:i'll first consider some of the first post's points and then add some more that i think are important.
first, it's correct that there is no "scientific backing"- for EITHER position. it is not the place of science to define what being "alive" (or, more specifically, a "person") is- it is in essence a value judgment, and, at least from a scientific perspective, an arbitrary one. thus, anyone who claims life begins at conception are not making an objective statement.
HOWEVER, the same goes for people that say life begins at the first breath. is it really breathing that makes something human? a beating heart? i don't think so. a fetus is a "live person" in the sense that it is comprised of cells which contain human DNA and which are dividing- but there IS a qualitative difference between a fetus and you and i; as the poster mentioned, a fetus is not autonomous (its survival is dependent on the mother's body) and seems not to "think" for itself (though this point, i think, is also outside the purview of science, and is even debatable philosophically).
AdornedImperious said:That said, there are important moral differences which make terminating a pregnancy different than causing the death of your mother or the drug dealer across the street. The most important of these is the one i mentioned above- it IS objectively true that the fetus depends on the environment of the uterus to develop to the point at which it is viable- on nutrients and immunological protection provided by the mother. it is also true that pregnancy is very taxing and potentially threatening to the life and health of a woman. because of this, i think there is a moral justification for the right of the mother to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
AdornedImperious said:All of these considerations, however, are really of little importance in deciding what the LEGAL status of abortion should be, except that in a free society one is free to decide for themselves, subjectively of course, what constitutes personhood in the womb and the circumstances under which it is morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy (thus, "choice"). Here i think that the place of law is to ensure that, should someone determine that they would like to terminate pregnancy, safe means are available by which to do it.
AdornedImperious said:The state cannot prevent a woman from wanting an abortion- and the thought that banning abortion will completely stop it is simply naive and false (before our current knowledge developed regarding pregnancy and medicine and general, women took formulations containing lead and arsenic to induce miscarriage, and many died as a result; there are also the "coat-hanger" abortions which are often cited).
Another reason why abortion will not ever be banned based on objective legal reasoning is one i stated above: every pregnancy carries with it health risks. There are many different conditions arising during pregnancy (preeclampsia and gestational diabetes, for instance) which are very often fatal if pregnancy is continued. I don't think that anyone would argue that a woman must keep her pregnancy when doing so will cause death to herself and the fetus. Since it is simply a fact that our medical knowledge is not complete, that is, that there is a finite probablity at any time during pregnancy that a life-threatening condition could develop as a result of it, and in all cases pregnancy is a profound burden on the mother, any attempt to ban abortion except "to save the life of the mother" will draw a line at a point which is arbitrary and which will inevitably result in cases at which medical judgment is incorrect and the mother is seriously injured or dies.
AdornedImperious said:To sum up my feelings on the issue, I don't think that anyone can claim their position on abortion to be morally superior to anyone else's- it is based, essentially, on what one defines subjectively to be a person based on his or her values and convictions. However, I don't think that anyone thinks that abortion is a good thing- nobody gets pregnant for the reason of having an abortion, and the procedure itself does carry some risk and is emotionally taxing on the woman.
AdornedImperious said:The state has an interest in keeping the number of safe abortions low- abortions are expensive, and preventable- if everyone used birth control at every time except when they desire to become pregnant, the abortion rate would be only dependent on the failure rate of contraception plus the rate of development of life-threatening conditions during pregnancy. doctors don't like to perform abortions, and their time is better spent with other matters.
I think that the best way to address the issue of abortion is to address the conditions which lead to the decision to terminate pregnancy- the most important of which are poverty, poor health/sex education, lack of health care access and the availability of contraception. The biggest obstacle to addressing the issue is the fact that most right-to-life people are also against contraception and birth control.
You might be surprised to know that I agree with you. The DNA tests as human. But that doesn't make it a being.aquapub said:The unborn are provably human by their DNA-as if we really need to pretend we don't know what that is growing inside a woman after conception.
That is a horrible, horrible comment. I can't say any more than that, except you must be a very bad person to have said that.aquapub said:Kid will grow up unwanted and end up a criminal? We could virtually eliminate all crime by killing all poor people. The ends don't justify the means.
Locke10 said:I don't think that us men should even be arguing about this topic. Whether we agree or not, its more of a thing for the women to decide. Let them do what they want with their body.
aquapub said:The unborn are provably human by their DNA-as if we really need to pretend we don't know what that is growing inside a woman after conception.
Every excuse liberals use to justify killing these people is inconsistent with every other murder law on our books. There is zero logic to the pro-abortionist side.
Ronald Bailey said:"I cannot see any intrinsic morally significant difference between a mature skin cell, the totipotent stem cell derived from it, and a fertilised egg," writes Savulescu. "They are all cells which could give rise to a person if certain conditions obtained."
"If all our cells could be persons, then we cannot appeal to the fact that an embryo could be a person to justify the special treatment we give it," concludes Savulescu.
The DNA content of a skin cell, a stem cell, and a fertilized egg are exactly the same. The difference between what they are and what they could become is the environment in which their DNA is found. Thus, the mere existence of human DNA in a cell cannot be the source of a relevant moral difference. The differences among these cells are a result of how the genes in each are expressed, and that expression depends largely on which proteins suppress or promote which genes.
So people who oppose stem cell research must logically be committed to the notion that the only difference between your skin cell and your twin are the proteins that decorate their DNA strands. But can moral relevance really be reduced to the presence or absence of certain proteins in a cell?
aquapub said:Blacks were once enslaved because these same kind of people (the very same kind of people-Democrats-in fact) dehumanized them into having no rights.
aquapub said:Your body your business? BS. Tell that to the FDA. Who you kill IS the government's business.
aquapub said:Kid will grow up unwanted and end up a criminal? We could virtually eliminate all crime by killing all poor people. The ends don't justify the means.
aquapub said:Think about it. There is no actual justification for it. The pro-abortionist's entire argument rests on simply not caring about these people. It is assinine.
GetVictd said:So it's only life if the mother chooses it to be? What if my son impregnates his wife and she wants/sneaks off to have an abortion? Won't my son be just as guilty (irresponsible?) or will this woman have just murdered my son's child?
ShamMol said:This is kinda hard to put into words, but I posted that I would.
My entire belief for when abortion is okay rests on when personhood begins. I realize several things-1.) The tissue that is growing in the woman is human DNA, 2.) The mother has the legal right to do with her body what she wants up until 6 months when the states then receive that right, 3.) It is okay for others to have different views of abortion than me.
With that being said, I believe that abortion is fine and dandy up until the time the fetus can conciously think, at which point it stops being a fetus and becomes a being. That point has been known to happen as early as 5 months but usually happens in the beginning to middle of the 6th month. At this point, I believe that it becomes a human being and thus is entitled to the same rights as any other being.
On the flip side of that, abortion is legal and I will do all I can to ensure that that legality is held up in accordance with Roe v. Wade which I believe is on firm judicial standing. I believe that a woman's right to be secure in her own body is a paramount right and one that men would want if they were in the same situation. I don't see abortion as murder, but merely a woman exercising her right to be secure (privacy which was granted in accordance with the 1st, 5th, 9th and 15th-forgive me if I am off on one of those-amms.). Before you say it, I will say it for you-I believe that even after the fetus becomes a being the woman still has the legal right to have an abortion. As Justice Kennedy once said, "It is not my place to impose my moral views on anyone else."
jpwright said:A valid point. Of course whether or not a fetus is alive is a subject of heavy debate, and there really is no definite truth to the question.
So really, as long as we agree that a baby is alive once it comes out of the womb regardless of whether or not it is alive prior to that point, then the only time we KNOW it's probably wrong to kill the baby is after birth.
Without scientific backing to extend the "cut-off point" before birth, to me it comes off as another religious leap of faith that I simply don't feel right believing in without factual proof.
Sadly in this society it's impossible to decide how far the law should go regarding moral issues.
When science proves that the fetus and the mother will die if pregnancy will continue, the sad truth is some feel that the pregnancy should still continue.
Naturally my position in my previous post was to explain why the pro-life stance's claim of moral superiority fails.
Lots of things are living, but that doesn't make it a being. What makes it a being is the ability to conciously think. Your biological fact proves it is alive, but that doesn't make it a being.Stinger said:And that is absolute garbage. It is alive, there is no denying that the fetus is a living thing. It is not dead it is alive and functioning just as every other human life has function during that paritcular stage of it's own unique life. That is biological fact. Nothing to do with religion or morality, simply biological fact.
Good, it is a being who is alive.Without scientific backing to extend the "cut-off point" to after birth it is quite the leap in faith that we all just "agree" that a baby in the womb at 8 months is not alive. By the way the 7 month old in my daughters womb, who kick my against my hand this weekend is quite alive.
An embryo and fetus are alive, but it doesn't make it a being, a living human being that is entitled to the same rights and priveledges that we are as beings.Then stick with scientific fact, an embryo is alive, just as much as you are alive.
We aren't pro-abortionists, we are pro-law-and-order, we are pro-choice, we aren't as you said, pro-abortion.Pro-abortionists often scream that some dangers during pregnancy are reason to ban it while ignoring the dangers of unwanted pregnancy as well, something which abortion can solve for.
Dude, there is a thread in this forum that has a guy like that.Who? Name one, other than some radical group, that oppose the life of the mother exception.
The moral superiority has no place in debate. What does have a place is the legality of a procedure, and that in this case, is purely legal.The reason for the moral superiority is because the pro-life position can rely on scientific fact rather than what we should all just "agree" on. It's a position that can be defended while the pro-abortion side retaine undefendable positions and must then deny reality and sceintific fact such as say that one is not alive until one is born and out of the womb.
Stinger said:And that is absolute garbage. It is alive, there is no denying that the fetus is a living thing. It is not dead it is alive and functioning just as every other human life has function during that paritcular stage of it's own unique life. That is biological fact. Nothing to do with religion or morality, simply biological fact.
Stinger said:And as long as we can agree to that then we can agree to anything. We can agree that's it not alive until it has eaten it's first solid food. We can agree it's not alive until it has walked. We can agree that it is not alive until until it has learned it's first word. We can agree that since a child is not alive until it is 12 months old we can harvest organs so that people who need them can live. Don't you believe we should do everything possible to save people who are dying, so why not just agree that these "things" are not alive until they are 12 months old? We agree on anything. But it does not change biological fact.
Stinger said:Without scientific backing to extend the "cut-off point" to after birth it is quite the leap in faith that we all just "agree" that a baby in the womb at 8 months is not alive. By the way the 7 month old in my daughters womb, who kick my against my hand this weekend is quite alive.
Then stick with scientific fact, an embryo is alive, just as much as you are alive.
Stinger said:Who? Name one, other than some radical group, that oppose the life of the mother exception.
Stinger said:The reason for the moral superiority is because the pro-life position can rely on scientific fact rather than what we should all just "agree" on. It's a position that can be defended while the pro-abortion side retaine undefendable positions and must then deny reality and sceintific fact such as say that one is not alive until one is born and out of the womb.
jpwright said:Once again, you take my words out of context. I said "we can agree that a baby is alive once it is out of its mother's womb"... so yes, agreeing on something does not make it necessarily true, but in the case of whether a baby is alive once it is out of the mother's womb... I'd like to see you prove me wrong on that one.
But see, since all of the abortion issue boils down to whether or not a baby is alive in the fetal stage, placing the cut-off point at birth is not a leap of faith, because the only real scientific evidence of proving life comes after birth, as much as I wish Bailey's words were 100% true.
Shye said:I am not really for abortion since it is murder, but there will always going to be abortions so keep them legal and safe but with restrictions. Like partial bith abortion should be illegal since the child is almost our of the womans womb befor he gets killed. But I think it is BOTH the woman AND males choice, or the fathers choice since it would be his child also.
Kelzie said:I am not inclined to get an abortion myself, but if I was there's no man who is could to tell me what I am going to do with my body. Since he isn't the one who is going to be carrying it around for nine months, it's my problem, not his. I think if the child can live outside of the womb, there is obviously no reason to kill it. There are many people looking to adopt in the US.
Shye said:true that.
Cmon, you are a master debater.Kelzie said:Wait what? I made two different points. Or are you just so swayed by my mad debate skills that I have convinced you of both? :mrgreen:
ShamMol said:Cmon, you are a master debater.
ShamMol said:Lots of things are living, but that doesn't make it a being.
What makes it a being is the ability to conciously think.
Your biological fact proves it is alive, but that doesn't make it a being.
An embryo and fetus are alive, but it doesn't make it a being, a living human being that is entitled to the same rights and priveledges that we are as beings.
We aren't pro-abortionists
, we are pro-law-and-order,
we are pro-choice, we aren't as you said, pro-abortion.
Dude, there is a thread in this forum that has a guy like that.
The moral superiority has no place in debate.
What does have a place is the legality of a procedure, and that in this case, is purely legal.
And for the last time, we are not pro-abortion
jpwright said:Care to back up your outrageous claims?
See the Bailey article in my previous post for some cited evidence to prove otherwise.
A valid point. Of course whether or not a fetus is alive is a subject of heavy debate, and there really is no definite truth to the question. So really, as long as we agree that a baby is alive once it comes out of the womb regardless of whether or not it is alive prior to that point, then the only time we KNOW it's probably wrong to kill the baby is after birth.
Of course, we could argue for hours and neither of us would change our positions considering we're both apparently relying on scientific facts to back up our positions. If you take my words in context, you would see that the only point I was making was that this subject is debatable
Once again, you take my words out of context.
I said "we can agree that a baby is alive once it is out of its mother's womb"...
so yes, agreeing on something does not make it necessarily true,
but in the case of whether a baby is alive once it is out of the mother's womb... I'd like to see you prove me wrong on that one.
But see, since all of the abortion issue boils down to whether or not a baby is alive in the fetal stage,
placing the cut-off point at birth is not a leap of faith,
because the only real scientific evidence of proving life comes after birth, as much as I wish Bailey's words were 100% true.
And please. Don't tell me about your daughter's child.
I've heard one too many sap stories about how "I loved little Johnny ever since sperm met egg, and I would just die if he were aborted." Good thing abortion isn't mandatory, then.
I'd prefer if this debate was conducted using facts and evidence rather than claims that simply contradict the original poster's ideas.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?