Sure it’s a life. Well, up until it isn’t anyway. I was specifically replying to hauss’ statement, “…I see the baby that it’s gonna be in a couple months. I don’t stop to think about whether it’s a life or not, because I know it will be a life soon.” As to whether or not it is a “life”, sure it is. But it may very well be aborted, spontaneously abort, be stillborn &c. In which case it is not the “life” referred to, above.
And no, you’re not being whooshed. I was responding to the “kill a father when you have an abortion” and “shoot knowing that you have a 35% chance of killing a little baby” nonsense.
Two-thirds of all potential human pregnancies spontaneously abort anyway, so “imminent” isn’t the word I’d use.
(So I guess God, the ultimate abortionist, kills millions every day! Go picket him.)
[Brief hijack] Most anit-abortion folks somehow arrive at this view through Christianity. Jesus, needless to say, did not waste his time on this issue (yes, abortion and contracption were well-known at the time). Why not feed the poor, treat the sick, clothe the naked, like JC, instead of frittering away precious supplies of human compassion on tiny people who do not actually exist as such?[/hijack]
Umm, i dont usually post here but what the heck…
(acually this is a new account, i lost the password to my old one)
anyways
The way i see it, the argument of interrupting an imminent life doesnt make much sence. While the baby is unborn, it and its mama are joined. u can’t use the law to enforce the babies security while they are one entity.
What if smoking kills babys while inside the mum? ban smoking for women up the duff?
what if eating big macs every day increases the chance of a misscarridge? ban big macs for em?
drinking loads of coffe? taking asperin every day…
what i’m trying to say is that while they are joined, the baby isnt an independent life. looking after it, making sure it isnt aborted, making sure it isnt involved in a car crash, etc. is the mums responsibility, its inpractible (is that a word?) for the state to try…
if she dont wanna take care of the baby? what then? force her? tie her to a chair?
The big problem here is that the terms “life” and “alive” are being used very sloppily.
We can all agree that rocks and plastic and formica and so on are not “alive”.
And we can also agree that typical healthy humans are “alive” and that this “life” is worth protecting.
But consider this list of other things, possibly warranting the title “life”.
chimp
dolphin
cow
herring
horse
dog
chicken
beetle
earthworm
wasp
venus fly trap
giant redwood
bread mould
brain tumor
yeast
e coli
flu virus
blind human
quadriplegic human
comatose human
comatose human in a persistent vegetative state
sperm
ovum
zygote
fetus
embryo
Which of these are “alive”? Which would you “kill” (or consume when “dead”) without a second thought?
When we look at the world around us, we make a distinction between “composed of living organic tissue” and “independently living a unique and valuable life”. Meat-eaters make an emotive distinction between the life that the chicken roasting in the oven once had and the life that their pet dog currently enjoys.
Clearly a zygote is life in the sense of “composed of living organic tissue” but it is equally clearly not life in the second sense. It is no more capable of living an independent life than the mother’s liver. Exactly when it becomes life in the second sense is effectively impossible to say, there being no obvious dividing line between life and non-life. How many pebbles make a heap? How big does a boat have to become before it is a ship?
Legislators of course, have to carve the world up into discrete chunks, which is why you cannot terminate a human baby at 36 weeks, but you can at an earlier point, depending on local laws.
No doubt drawing that line is very difficult, but as our knowledge of human biology continues to improve, one hopes we will be able to bring more and better insights to bear.
Pretending that there is a clear line, whether that moment comes at birth or ejaculation or anywhere in between, ducks the issue.
Well actually no. There certainly is a clear line of demarcation for the creation of a new human life: fertilization.
This road has been travelled often, my standard cite is here
It covers the difference between “living tissue” and a distinct life (see myth #1)
It covers the differences between sperm/oocytes and zygotes.
It outlines why fertilization marks the creation of a new human life. It cites standard genetics and embryology texts in doing so.
If one wishes to argue that human organisms don’t deserve protection (or to be called “persons”) until some arbitrary point in their development (“sentience” or “viability” or “exit from the birth canal” or “clipping the cord” or “third trimester”…then those are all philosophical arguements…not embryological arguements)
Riddle me this: What if there was a 100% pregnancy-to-birth success… who would and would not then be pro-abortion, in any stage? I think this question will create a bigger seperation between the two sides and kind of streamline this debate.
Hey, it’s not me who’s being emotional by thinking that a life is ok to kill while inside a womb, and not ok outside… as if it mattered what was surrounding the being at the time of slaughter. Why not be more technical, read tom’s post, and then come back after some actual thought and tell me why a surrounding bag of waters (and a couple months) changes what a life is and isn’t.
You really should contribute some thoughts in a thread before pointing fingers… but you know that already.
I am pro-choice. Not because I would even ask to have an abortion (unless the mother’s life were in jeopardy), but because I don’t believe in pushing my values on others unless their actions negatively effect others. And until I can prove conclusively that an unborn child is an “other” and not just life that couldn’t live outside of it’s mother, I am not going to force others to live my way.
Just curious, are you implying that I am trying to push my values on everyone here? First off, if I wanted to push anything, I wouldn’t come to this board, because it’s impossible to push anything here. Secondly, I honestly don’t think a debate is pushing, it’s… a debate.
By the way, that’s fine. You can have your POV. I just think that, barring extreme situations, someone should stand up for that “thing” who can’t stand up for itself. Can you blame me for thinking this way and then debating it in a debate forum?
You claim that you’re not being emotional, yet you use emotionally-charged words like “slaughter”. Perhaps you’re not being honest with yourself (or with us). You already admitted that you try to be logical, but that you are incapable of doing so when it comes to abortion.
So, to recap, you claim that it’s not you who is being emotional, but that is false. It is you who is being emotional.
I’ll give you my own take on things. It’s not focused on the fetus being inside a woman (though that is an important factor when dealing with late-term abortions). My stance has to do with brain function. If the fetus has no coherent brain activity, then it is not yet fully human. I have no qualms at all with a potential parent deciding to abort a non-thinking fetus for any reason whatsoever. Likewise, I have absolutely no qualms with family members “pulling the plug” on a brain-dead child after birth. I am concerned more with the current situation than with future possibilities.
Like you said earlier, none of us can see into the future to know if the decision to abort was the “right” one. So, for all you know, any given abortion could remove a potential serial killer from the world, and save dozens of lives. The point is, no one knows what might have been, and any argument based on an unknown alternate future is fundamentally flawed.
I think it’s fine to get rid of potential humans, because they’re not yet actual humans. Once they become actual humans, I figure they need to be protected just like I am.
You see what the fetus will become, a baby, after a few months more development. I see what the fetus is, which isn’t a baby, because it isn’t developed enough yet.
My personal test is viability, if the fetus can be reasonably expected to survive outside the womb, I’d protect it. This is because, IMHO, that fetus is really just a baby that’s still in the womb. Before then, it hasn’t reached baby status, and thus does not get considered an actual human, it’s still just potential.
You’re off base on a couple of points, here. Nobody here is pro-abortion. There are plenty of people, myself included, who are pro-abortion rights but who certainly have no interest in encouraging abortion. We just tend to think that while abortion isn’t a good thing, it’s sometimes the least bad of a bunch of bad choices.
I also doubt that many people form their views on the subject based purely (or even mainly) on the number of unsuccessful pregnancies. The abortion debate tends to revolve around two questions: Is the fetus a living person? and Whose welfare takes priority, the fetus or the woman? Actually, in my experience, the debate really only revolves around the second question.
Those things should be outlawed, but, like you said, it’s impractical, so they’re not. A mother who smokes is doing possible damage to a possible defenseless human being. That, in my book, is a crappy thing to do, correct?
Now, to do a sure killing to a possible human being is just as bad, in my book. “O, it’s only a 33% possibility, so, it’s ok.” Sick, just sick, IMHO.
Let me ask again: Hypothetically speaking, if all pregnancies were given to 100% success, would you still abort a baby in all scenarios that you would now?
This is a point that I have yet to see you address in depth. Let’s say that, when not wearing a condom, you have a 33% chance to concieve a child that will be carried to term. Therefore, wearing a condom results in only a 33% possibility of killing a potential human being. Your own logic places contraception on the same level as abortion.
I knew someone would say something about that word slaughter. And then I figured that you could slaughter a dog, or a toad, so it would be “unemotional” to use that word to refer to the destruction of a fetus. Guess not.
Listen, you cannot sit there and try to ascertain whether I am being emotional… all you see are words on a screen. Can’t you just leave it at that? Most people who do talk about this crap are being emotional, so when someone comes in who isn’t, all it takes is a couple little iffy things and everyone points the “emotional” finger. Just relax and take the posts for what they are, information, not to be used to be some sort of sleuth determining who is and isn’t emotional.