Along the same lines, I wouldn’t mind a citation for this either:
More than (say) three cases. Talkback radio windbags’ recollections don’t count as evidence.
picmr
Daniel, how do you figure this? Its not that I disagree, but it seems like a big jump to make.
Something that I’m confused about is the statement I often here “The state doesn’t have the authority to mandate morality”. What about laws against theft and murder? If someone actually makes the effort to look at this from a pro-life perspective its not just a morality question, but a consistency question.
Burn away.
Theft and murder are crimes that affect other people directly. Morailty isn’t necessarily the reason why we punish them, but rather we punish them because we have laws against the taking of another person’s property. It’s law and order . . . the rules which allow us to funtion as a society, not moral outrage which make theft and murder a crime.
“Mandating morailty” is when you attempt to legislate against what is morally offensive to you when, actually, no one is comitting a “crime” in the traditional definitions of theft, assault, murder, etc.
Abortion, arguably, can not be said to directly harm another person, and the legislation proposed against it has been propelled by a sense of moral outrage.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a fetus is not a human being, and thus, legally, abortion is not murder. Those that oppose abortion want to make aborting a fetus murder because they * believe * that the fetus is a human being. Attempting to pass legislation against it is mandating morality— You are trying to make your morals my law.
I would disagree with this statement, regardless of which camp I’m in. Deciding whether a fetus is a human is not a moral question. It is both a medical question and a philosophic question, but not moral. Medically, the pro-choice camp is extremely hypocritic in some instances, and philosophically, the pro-life camp is lacking in some cases.
But the question can completely be taken out of the equation. Most pro-lifers will talk morality, falsely thinking it will strike a chord with some, but the stronger, more correct argument is a medical one.
Connor
CONNOR: Once the state has authority to decide what a woman can & can’t do with her reproductive organs, they can do anything they want. The “nose of the Camel”. In China they already do this. Or, let’s take the "pro-lifers) arguemant a step farther- a woman can’t end the potential life within her womb if she feels she must. But are not all eggs “potential life”? There is small difference between a 1 day fertilized ovum, and a ready to be fertilized ovum. So we could have required pregnancies. If a woman is Fertile, she MUST be fertilized, she MUST have a Baby. “There are so many families out there who are childless”. True both are silly, but so is banning the “morning after” pill. Keep the government out of the wombs of the women, please. It has no business there.
From an adoptive mom on the “you can just put the baby up for adoption” debate.
Lissa is right. There is a shortage of healthy white babies. There is no shortage of children for adoption. I admire the people who have the courage to adopt special needs, but many people do not want a birth mother who has consumed a single drink, much less used hard drugs. They do not want a child conceived in rape, and incest adds the genetic problems. They don’t want to deal with spinal bifida or down’s syndrome. I’ve watched adoptive parents turn down birthmoms for being too young, too old, or having the wrong body type (i.e they were fat). There are 1.2-1.5 million abortions in this country. It won’t take any time for all before waiting kids outnumber waiting adoptive parents (they already do for many types of kids). Imagine a 25% increase in the number of kids. Imagine what that does to the public school system, the social welfare system. Yes, we would need orphanges, especially since in states where there is a shortage of foster care right now.
Its also important to remember that adoption causes a primal wound in most kids (not to mention the birthmom). It is not an easy, happy ending to an unwanted pregnancy. For some women and their babies, it is simply the best ending. I’ve watched potential adoptive parents back out of adoptions for these reasons as well, deciding that even a healthy white infant is not for them if they need to take the emotional baggage of adoption along.
I see your point, but the fact remains that a fetus is not legally a human being, per the Supreme Court. Since the * legal * aspects have already been decided, then most arguments seem to fall under the “moral outrage” category. Legally, the issue is settled, so the only protests against it come from individual, personal and (dare I say it?) moral beliefs on the matter.
daniel-
Its not that I disagree with your stance. Its just that your reasoning is very much flawed.
To refute your “eggs as potential life” argument. An egg has half the genetic info needed to be life. A fertilized egg has all the info, is using it and is alive.
Now, if you want to get philosophical, you can point out that in a controlled laboratory environment, an egg has been made to double its DNA strand over itself and begin cell division, if only for about 4 seconds, you can, but that situation just isn’t feasible. It involves a heavy amount of radiation that just isn’t common in the world.
There is a small difference between a 1 day fertilized ovum and a ready to be fertilized ovum. There is also a small difference between a 1 day fertilized ovum and a ready to be born fetus. But its what they have in common that MUST be addressed, but hasn’t.
Until the issue can be viewed in a logical manner, arguments like “keep the government out of a woman’s womb” or “all life is precious” fail miserably. The latter fails to address the fact that a fetus is life - philosophically and medically (despite what is <i>legal</i>), and the former fails to address the life of the mother, and the potential life of that child once it is born.
Connor - c’mon folks, work to <b>fight</b> ignorance, not ignore it
Even if I weren’t such a fundamental Christian, I would still say abortion is wrong.
So I assume you don’t eat meat? Or much of anything else, for that matter?
So you wouldn’t remove a cancerous tumor?
Whoa there, folks. Keep the arguments on track. The easiest way to lose credibility is $hit like that.
Once again throwing in $.02
I admit I am sorta on the fence, but here’s something for though:
seems to me abortion is NOT about the woman’s body, but about the child’s body, who has the stupid misfortune to be surrounded by the woman. Of course every woman should have control over her own body, but the question seems to be does she have the right to have control over her BABY’s body?
Now THIS is a question that needs to be addressed. Many would disagree with you. I, however, would not. And for this reason.
The baby/fetus/ovum is not the woman’s body. You take a look at any cell in a woman’s body, you’re going to see HER DNA. You look at any cell in the baby’s body, that ain’t the mother’s! Guess whose it is…
But still, even accepting this, I believe pro-choice advocates have an argument. And it is THAT argument that needs to be used and expounded upon.
The “Woman’s Body” argument is fallacious and poor. It is hypocritical in the eyes of the law (manslaughter laws, and PBA laws in some states). It is hypocritical in the eyes of philosophy. Its definitely hypocritical in the eyes of theology, but that’s an argument that cannot be used here.
Now, back to the program…
[quote]
The baby/fetus/ovum is not the woman’s body.
[quote]
The ovum definately is part of the woman’s body. The fetus is attached to, and growing inside of her body, and since it cannot develop independantly, it is in essence part of her body.
It’s a combination of her DNA, and the father’s. It’s not as if the fetus develops its own complete DNA sequence. Parts of it are unique, but not entirely.
When a fetus will make it without being inside the woman’s body, and not be directly attached and sucking nutrients from the woman, then it is a “fallacious and poor” argument.
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
One month, one week, two days, 19 hours, 19 minutes and 55 seconds.
1592 cigarettes not smoked, saving $199.02.
Life saved: 5 days, 12 hours, 40 minutes.
Satan, that’s a start of a good point, but as it stands, very wrong.
As it stands, that argument is saying, “If I have complete control over this being’s destiny, then I have the right to anything I choose to it.” I’m sure you wouldn’t agree with this.
What needs to be argued is what is it about this dependence that either doesn’t make that fetus a person/individual or gives the woman the right to kill it?
Fact is Connor, that a lot of people would argue that it’s not a “being” at all. It’s a clump of cells that has attached itself to the uterine wall.
Lissa: Good argument. A clump of cells is very far removed from being identified as a “being” per se.
I didn’t see your previous post, the one in front of Satan’s. You need to revise a bit. “In essence” doesn’t work here. Be more specific.
In regards to the DNA, because 1/2 of your DNA is your father’s, can he kill you now? Nope.
The argument against the “not a being, but a clump of cells argument” is this, if anyone wants a stab at it:
‘Sure, its a clump of cells. But it can also be viewed as Person: Stage 1. It has every characteristic of the definition of life (sorry don’t have it on me, but I think this can be a given). It may not have 10 fingers, but neither does my brother. Its undergoing cell division, is alive, has human DNA different from the person it is inside of, and (in most all cases) presents no harm to the mother.’
Now, this opens up many arguments against a pro-life stance. Namely, if the life of the mother is threatened.
Proceed…
Right, because I am no longer in utero.
Generally, we don’t hold funerals for fetuses that miscarry in the earliest stages, so I don’t think that most people look upon an early-stage fetus as a person in the fullest sense.
Depends on what stage of development you’re talking about. An early stage fetus is “alive” as much as a cancerous tumor is “alive.” It’s growing, attached to the body, the cells are dividing, it aquires blood vessles. I have a friend who has endometrial cysts that do the same thing.
That’s true, but your brother is a fully developed, sentient human. A human doesn’t necessarily need the proper number of digits, but it does need a funtioning brain, heart, fully developed nervous system, etc. A first stage fetus doesn’t.
[quote]
Its undergoing cell division, is alive, has human DNA different from the person it is inside of, and (in most all cases) presents no harm to the mother.’
[quote]
Again, cell division isn’t necessarily a unique thing. (See cancer cell argument.) And as for harm: psychological harm isn’t a factor here?