If morality tells us to value life, then how can it be morally Ok to take a life. One rule: don’t equate morality with legality.
What could be the reason for ending a innocent life? I have heard selfishness, inconvenience, irresponcibility, economics. any more?
you are presuming a fetus is a human life.
I meant to add the following:
It is potential human life. There is a difference between human life and potential human life that anti-abortionists always overlook.
justinh wrote:
That’s a mighty big “if” there.
There aren’t very many codes of morality that tell us to value the life of, say, a staphylococcus bacterium. In fact, there aren’t very many codes of morality that tell us to value the life of the vegetables we eat.* So why should we value the life of a blastula that happens to have human DNA in it?
*) Or, more accurately, the vegetables that people other than myself eat. I don’t eat vegetables, because they’re icky. Bleah.
Or, as it may also be said, assuming that a fetus is a person. For example, a brain-dead human is undoubtably has human DNA and is alive, but is commonly no longer considered a person. It depends on whether you define “human” as “thing with human DNA” or “person”, and then whether it is a “thing with human DNA” you value, or a “person”.
There are also, many, many reasons to take human life, and even the life of a person, even if you value highly human life/a person’s life. You may kill to save another, or kill to prevent greater suffering, or kill to put a person out of his/her miserty, etc. Far more reasons than the “selfishness, inconvenience, irresponcibility, economics” you list. Even if you value a thing, you may destroy it, if its existence conflicts with a thing valued more highly.
I’m splitting hairs here, because I would generally agree that most moral systems do place a high value on human life, but come on, you clearly meant YOUR morals.
Morality tells us to value life. It also tells us that we may morally defend our own person, even to the point of killing the other person.
No moral precept is absolute.
I consider myself a moral person and yet even if we define a fetus (or embryo or blastocyte) as a “person”, I support abortion–the right to obtain one and the advisability under some circumstances of exercising that right–without reservation.
It is a horrendous sin to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. It is a horrendous sin to impose or maintain a social situation in which the outcome of being sexually active is as antagonistically polarized as it is when women don’t have the freedom to terminate pregnancy if they feel they need to do so.
Being female means great burdens, great responsibility, and great power. Those who are female get (or at least have a reasonable shot at getting) the experience of having life form within them; of giving birth; of nursing. Continuing a chain of life. Being almost God-like, virtually creating life that didn’t exist before from the flesh of their own bodies. Yeah…that, and morning sickness, and breast tenderness, and the thrill of being way pregnant in the heat of August. Not to mention periods and PMS and fluid retention. And having the little embryonic parasite steal all your calcium and proteins and dump its cute little waste products into your bloodstream, then after birth, guess what, you are edible.
It also means sometimes you get pregnant at grossly inconvenient times, and the down-side of it can predominate to the point that it is experienced as a curse, not a blessing, and at that point being God-like means weilding the power of life and death in a different way, and that is (and should be) part of being female too.
This is a trick question, isn’t it?
I consider myself to be a moral person, but I am in favor of abortion.
However, you may now turn around and say that, since I am pro-choice, I do not fit YOUR definition of a moral person.
What, pray tell, are the criteria upon which you base morality?
I think abortion is morally ambiguous. To say the least. If I were a woman I probably wouldn’t consider it under any circumstances. If a loved-one ever considered having an abortion I would advise her strongly against it.
But…
I’m pro-choice. It’s not a decision that I’ll ever have to make. It’s not a decision that I’d ever want to make. But I believe that the decision should be there.
So do you see how somebody could support abortion while still considering all of the moral implications? Abortion never will be an easy issue. I’ve been on both sides of the fence and I haven’t been 100% comfortable with either stance. My opinion is summed up very nicely by Carl Sagan’s article, “Is it Possible to be both Pro-life and Pro-Choice?”. You can find it in his last book, “Billions and Billions”. If you’re interested in a levelheaded and rational take on the issue you should check it out.
Does that include, say, the moral precept that it’s wrong to rape children? Or that it’s wrong to execute abortionists? Or that it’s wrong to fire a teacher for being Jewish?
It is certainly alive, and it is certainly human. There is nothing potential about these facts. However, if you wish to define something like “personhood,” or to explain how the rights a human life deserves are somehow derived from the being’s current physical state, or to explain why the being’s rights can be morally subjugated to someone else’s higher rights–well, provide your rationale.
“Human life deserves protection, but this isn’t a human life” fails at the start.
To specifically answer the OP:
According to my axioms (YMMV;)), after conception, none of us have ever existed in a form that was not essentially human. Different physical attributes at different phases, certainly. But always human. I also hold as axiomatic that any real being possessing even the potential for sentience is a “person.” When that potential no longer exists, there is no longer a person.
In those rare instances where a brain dead patient recovers, for example, I do not believe that during the period of “brain death” we could morally kill this being, at least not if we knew the potential for recovery existed. A brain dead person who will recover is a person. A fetus (who clearly possesses the potential for sentience) is a person. A corpse is not. FWIW, this is my moral boundary around human rights that deserve protection, whatever those rights might be.
I also believe that a person’s right to live is the most fundamental right, even if it cannot be protected absolutely (for example, what if my right to live conflicts with your right to live?). All other rights I can conceive of are meaningless if the right to live is not at their foundation.
You may argue that one has the right to self determination, the right to purge one’s body of an “embryonic parasite,” the right to engage in sexual activity freely without fear of certain consequences, etc.–and those rights may be absolutely real and important–but those rights have little value if there is no moral restriction against my killing the “owner” of the right. They must be lesser rights because from a practical perspective they don’t exist without the fundamental right to live.
I also hold that this can’t be true only for my rights–meaning, I don’t just hold that my “other” rights are less important than my right to live, while simultaneously being more important than any right someone else might possess. If I allowed this, than I’d have to allow this as true for others, which would effectively negate my right to live. Therefore, the right to live is a fundamental–the most fundamental–right. If there is such a thing as an absolute right, this is it. If there is such a thing as the most “horrendous sin,” to use AHunter3’s term, it is the violation of this right.
So, no, in my worldview, I could not morally find a rationale for abortion (except, perhaps, in rare instances where the mother’s life would be lost–though I have read some articles that suggest this is rare to the point of being non-existent).
I also know and love people who are pro-choice, people I consider moral human beings overall (none of us are morally “pure”). I do believe, though, that those people are confused on this issue, even if it seems crystal clear in their own minds.
There have been many well argued, civil, debates about the issues surrounding abortion on these boards. Most of those debates have been started by people who can spell.
Sounds like a troll OP, but I’ll call you on it nonetheless - define “morality”, give SPECIFIC examples of where “morality” tells “us” to value life and “legality” tells us otherwise.
You are SOOOOO going to get ripped to shreds by even the “pro-life” people on this board. “Morality” as defined by whom and in respect of which religion? Can’t answer that question? Don’t start this debate - you’ll lose.
reprise,
bear with my spelling woes please. it was too late for a spell check or even review.
You want specific example of where morality dictates a certain value on a life and legality doesnt. well how about the killing of a human fetus? some call it abortion, others call it choice, some call it a right.
everyone,
Definition: life here is human life.
I know this has been debated before but I still don’t understand some points. ie, when does it stop being a fetus (mass,growth,choice,inconvenience,part of the woman’s body,situation) and become a human being?
Is this too specific a definition of morality? Is this just my personal opinion? Isn’t the sanctity of life the basis for all morality definitions?
What difference is that?
One difference (between potential life vs. human life) is whether or not the fetus could eat, breathe, basically survive outside the womb.
I have debated this question on other boards; there really is no middle ground. My personal morality tells me that I need to be an excellent mother to the children I have, and any more than two kids/ two pregnancies would stretch me beyond my abilities, funds, emotional and physical resilience.
Does anyone honestly consider a collection of cells “a human life?” I can’t imagine even the staunchest pro-lifer getting her period a few days late and crying over the “dead baby.” Would you give the pad a proper burial?
We all have a point at which we define what is or isn’t a baby. It’s obvious that the morality issue isn’t about killing babies; it’s about unnaturally terminating a pregnancy. Do I consider a medical procedure that removes the possibility of a human life immoral? No. Are vasectomies immoral? Condoms? Perhaps it would help if the OP replaced the word “immoral” with the word “sin.”
That’s agood point but the iunderlying reasoning can be extended to things other than fetuses. For example should we consider a coma victim a ‘potential’ person because he can’t survive without a ventilator?
It doesn’t remove the possibility of human life. Abortion removes the certainty (barring accidents) of human life.
I’m not picking on you, atypicalcarl, but I for one would really appreciate it if this thread didn’t devolve into a religious conflict. It has happened in previous threads and the only certain result is the termination (abortion?) of meaningful discussion.
Other than that I agree with pretty much everything Bob Cos said, as always happens in abortion debates.
I apologize. It was not my intent to hijack the thread - only to speculate as to the motivation of the OP. As to the possibility/certainty terms, responding would be another hijack.
I didn’t mean to say you were hijacking it, just that I know someone cough [sub]Wildest Bill[/sub] cough would jump on that word sin and twist it. So far your contributions have been very positive (although you don’t need me to tell you that)