Here’s something I’ve wondered about the abortion debate: why don’t people define the issue?
First, what we all (hopefully) agree on: a mom can’t just up and kill her two year old son, or for that matter her newborn. If you think newborns can be killed you are probably among about 1% of people who think so, and while you’re entitled to respond… well anyway.
And probably most of us agree that letting sperm and eggs die is no problem whatsoever. If you disagree, see above statement.
So the question is, “When do the gametes become a human life, and how do we define/determine this?”
Other questions are irrelevent. If the fetus is nothing but tissue, there should be no restrictions on abortion at all. It is no different from having a tooth pulled. It isn’t “a woman’s right,” it’s just not an issue. Do whatever.
If it IS a human life, a child, then a woman should be physically restrained by the police for trying to kill it, and any considerations about money, lifestyle, fatherhood, even rape, make no difference. They aren’t grounds to kill a toddler, and if an unborn baby has the same status as human life, that’s that.
SO… all that to say, “What’s the logical way to determine if it’s a human life?”
There are basically two approaches that I’ve heard: 1) the “presence of” approach, which means, “When individuals have X set of characteristics, they are human.” (Keep in mind whatever applies to the unborn applies to the rest of us too.) 2) TO WHATEVER EXTENT individuals have X set of characteristics, they are human."
My problem with the #2 approach is mainly that the author of this arguement where I saw it defined the characteristics as things like intelligence, independence, etc, which says to me “retarded kids and senile old people are less human, and smart people more human than dummies, so we can distribute rights to life accordingly.” The problem with #1 is deciding which characteristics count.
Any ideas?