There are currently two threads on abortion
here and here.
In one thread, Anti Pro said:
Without reading that thread, I posted the following in the other thread
So there it is. Post somewhere else if you disagree with the first principle (life begins at conception).
Your’re going to kill me? I don’t even know you… (I haven’t gotten to the other thread yet! ;))
Life begins at conception? Either this is a trivial point or a misrepresentation.
Is a fetus alive? Absolutely. So is a cancerous tumor. The issue of whether a fetus is “alive” is a stretch. Is it a separate life from the mother? Now that, I think, is a good question. My finger is alive; if I cut it off, it will die. Does it have a right to life?
As I recall, a swimming sperm is alive, as is the waiting egg. When they join together, they don’t suddenly become alive–they were alive all along. On what basis do you conclude that life “begins” at conception? What if it begins, say, when a new sperm is formed (I have killed and killed…)?
I say that a mother can choose to “cut out” a baby growing in her just as freely as she can cut out a tumor growing in her, which is equally alive. Obviously, the consequences of the actions are different, but the right to choose is fundamentally the same.
Smartass,
I cannot respond to your post unless you actually offer a definition of “life.”
The gist of your post is: according to one definition, a finger, tumor, sperm and egg is alive.
So? Is that definition good or bad? Do you subscribe to that defintion? Do you think I do?
As long as were are stating possible definitions of life that have no relation to the matter at hand: according to one definition, I am the only person who is alive and everyone else is a figment of my imagination. I don’t see how either definition furthers the discussion.
My point was that for most commonly accepted definitions of life, this is an irrelevant issue. We kill living things every day, and that any meaningful abortion discussion isn’t based on the sheer act of killing. Usually, the focus is on the notion that the thing being killed is a human.
Does your definition of life negate this point, or are you sticking by the Evil Demon hypothesis?
Agreed with Smartass thus far.
You can say it is all life or none of it is life, and the fact is that you need to define what is ethical and moral in terms of how you treat that life.
We can all agree that dogs are alive, right? Well, it is perfectly normal and accepted to put them to sleep if they are old, dying and in pain. But we do not do this for humans, and this is a huge issue.
We can all agree that plants are alive, right? Well, we eat them. It is perfectly acceptable to pick that ear of corn and eat it. This is taking a life.
We can all agree that sperm is alive, right? Well, everytime a man masturbates, he kills millions of the critters. Now, while some religions (such as Judaism) prohibit the spilling of seed, the fact is that almost all men do this, most of them often. As such, killing sperm seems to be accepted for the most part.
Just making a definition of “alive” does nothing to further the discussion, really.
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
One month, one day, 16 hours, 10 minutes and 58 seconds.
1266 cigarettes not smoked, saving $158.37.
Life saved: 4 days, 9 hours, 30 minutes.
Satan:
No.
Isn’t growth part of the definition of life? A single sperm cell will never grow into anything. Ditto an egg. Once you have a fertilized egg, then there’s room for debate.
(Well, I suppose there’s always room for debate…especially here. But you know what I mean.)
Judaism does not teach that sperm is alive. It does say that it is sinful to waste it because it has the potential to become human life, but not that it is alive.
I will play by the OP’s rules. For purposes of this argument / thread, I will accept the postulate that the products of conception are both alive and human, and that abortion therefore kills a human.
In light of that postulate, I am still pro-choice. Not all killing is murder.
**
Let’s see… A sperm does not just come into being, cmkeller. It does grow into a sperm. And it also has all of the other requisites of life, including reaction to stimuli, the need for some kind of sustinance, and really every other definition of life you would have.
What you are saying is akin to saying that a caterpillar is not alive yet because it is not a butterfly, it only has the potential to become one. I say that’s wrong.
Well, you know your Judaism far better than I, sir. But what I said above still stands, and to be honest, this is a rather small niggling point compared to the main point I was trying to make.
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
One month, one day, 16 hours, 25 minutes and 3 seconds.
1267 cigarettes not smoked, saving $158.42.
Life saved: 4 days, 9 hours, 35 minutes.
I apologize for not specifically stating what AHunter3 was able to point out. I meant to say that a fertilized egg is both alive AND human. Various definitions of what is alive has been covered by Cecil.
The challenge I should have made to Smartass was not to have him define “life” but to define a “living human.”
Is someone who is hooked up to a lung machine a living human? If so, than so is a “fetus” that is 2 months premature and sustained by an incubator. Does the definition of life change according to advances in medical technology?
Is sentience the litmus test? I guess that means that you can “abort” a newborn and anyone in a coma, for that matter.
See, now it gets more interesting.
Okay, so the fetus is alive and it is human. That’s a start. However, my finger is alive and it is human. If I cut it off, it will die. Would that be “killing”? Better yet, would it be murder?
So, is this gestating fetus just human, or is it also a human being? At what point can you say that it is a separate human being from the mother?
If we’re going to talk about justifications for killing human beings, I think it makes sense to make sure that that is indeed what we’re talking about.
So why are you making me offer the definition? I’m tempted to simply say “I’ll know it when I see it.”
To quote from Cecil’s column: “it may be hopeless to define life in a nontrivial way”
What do we know?
(1) a fetus has a separate genetic code from its mother
(2) a fetus has the potential to grow into a baby (which, I presume, we can all agree is a human being).
(3) from the moment an egg is fertilized, it is attempting to reach its goal of becoming a baby.
But, with the aid of science, we either can or will be able to in the near future:
(1) elongate the time we can gestate a baby outside the womb (maybe to the point of not needing a womb at all?)
(2) clone someone so that a baby might have the identical genetic code as its mother
(3) God knows what else.
I’m not going to attempt to define a living human being in that minefield.
I honestly can’t follow your logic here. How can you compare a fetus to a finger? A finger doesn’t have a heartbeat or other vital, life-sustaining organs. It can’t mature and reproduce other fingers. Your finger isn’t alive. YOU are alive, and you have ten fingers (presumably).
A fetus HAS fingers, so it is obvious that fingers are just a part of the whole. A whole what? The whole of a human being. So it seem obvious to me that a fetus is a human being.
It just isn’t the same comparison. A woman definitely has the right to cut off her finger. After all, she was BORN with it. A fetus is not something she was born with, so the rules are obviously much more complicated.
Personally, I think abortion is murder. I can’t see how anyone can destroy a fetus, knowing that it is a human being. I can’t see how a fetus can be compared to a cancerous tumor, that will never be anything but a tumor.
Actually I like the sentience as a litmus test idea. Killing people in a coma doesn’t count because they’re still sentient…just in a coma. A proper analogy would be someone who is brain dead. Do you propose that anyone who suffers brain death should be kept alive anyway? What would be the point?
Most pro-choice people have no trouble with abortion when the ‘baby’ is just a zygote…just a collection of cells really. In this instance aborting the baby is about as morally reprehensible as losing some blood or masturbating to climax.
I haven’t met a pro-choice person yet who supports abortion after the time a baby is viable. Of course, now the trick becomes when the baby is viable and/or sentient.
Morgan:
Along those same lines:
(1) a sperm has a separate genetic code from its mother
(2) a sperm has the potential to grow into a baby (which, I presume, we can all agree is a human being).
(3) from the moment a sperm is created, it is attempting to reach its goal of becoming a baby.
Where do you draw the line distinguishing the two? At fertilization? Based on what?
It really is kind of the crux of the debate. Obviously, you can’t provably define a human being in such a way that someone can’t shoot you down on some logical basis. However, if you want to reach some sort of moral conclusion about abortion, you’re going to have some kind of personal definition. You’ll feel a lot better about it if you can rationalize it. However, it probably won’t be much help if you want to use it to outlaw abortion, unless you can convince everyone else you are right.
Psycho Pirate:
My finger does not have a heart; whether or not it has a “heartbeat” would depend on what you are referring to. It has bones and skin and tendons and ligaments. It is composed of living cells. On what basis can you conclude that it is not alive? Surely not based on the ability to reproduce. Does that mean that a sterile man is not alive (or not human)?
Is the finger not alive because it is attached to me? Because it cannot live on its own? If so, then how is it different from a fetus?
A pregnant woman HAS a fetus, so it is obvious that the fetus is just a part of the whole. A whole what? The whole of a pregnant woman. So it seems obvious to me that a fetus is not a human being.
Note: I am not using this argument to claim that a fetus is not a human being–I am making a point.
What sort of standard is this? So, if I get an earring, I can’t remove it later? What if someone rapes me and then attaches a leech to my scrotum? Am I not allowed to remove it?
Maybe the people who are doing this, don’t know that it is a human being. The fact that you believe it, however strongly, does not necessarily make it obvious or “known” to everyone else. If we can’t agree on what is the difference between one or more living (non-human being) cells and a human being, then we certainly aren’t going to get far with determining whether or not killing them is “murder”.
It’s perfectly okay that you feel this way, but you can’t seriously expect to convince anyone else based on this logic. And if you can’t do any better than this, you certainly have no business deciding for anyone else whether or not an abortion is acceptable.
So, you’re sure there’s a difference, but you can’t define that difference? Without that definition, there’s little to discuss.
-VM
Jeff_42:
I think, to some extent, you are right. Viability? Sentience? Where do these things start? And what about the “in-between” case: When my daughter was born, she had to stay in the NICU for 5 days for a course of antibiotics. Across from her was a child who had been born at either 16 or 18 weeks (I can’t remember, but I know it was a record). The child was in an incubator. If it survives, it will have cerebral palsy and numerous other afflictions. Is this viable? Is it really saving a life?
-VM
This is a strawman argument. A sterile man is just like any other man except for the fact that he cannot reproduce. However, this is due to a genetic flaw, and is not a normally occurring phenomenae.
Because your finger will never mature to the point that it CAN live apart from you.
Really, she was BORN with a fetus? Amazing…
Perish the thought.
More strawmen arguments. Go ahead and remove the leech from your scrotum. It isn’t like it is going to KILL it. Go ahead and remove your earring. Your earring isn’t ALIVE.
Yeah, I shouldn’t have just jumped right and and said that they “know” a fetus is a human being.
I think I am doing just fine, even without putting up ridiculous strawman arguments.
Not without bringing religion into the debate, which I am doing my best not to do. If I were to bring religion into the debate, my main point would center around the word “soul”. But I do not want to debate my religion.
Psycho Pirate:
I am sure it is very comforting for you to dismiss my points as “straw man” arguments and dismiss them from further consideration. After all, it allows you to intentionally miss the point:
If we can’t agree on the definitions for “life” and “human being”, we’ve got no basis for further discussion.
And, no, mentioning a “soul” isn’t helpful at all, particularly since we have no way of identifying when and if one exists.
Psycho Pirate:
One further point:
No. You are doing just find justifying why abortion is not right for you. You are not doing just fine justifying why no one else should be allowed to have one.
-VM
Enough with the fingers and earings and whatnot.
Morgan, I’ll take you up on your challenge. I’ll accept, for the purposes of this argument, that “life” begins at the instant of conception. However, I don’t think that defining the embryo as “living” at that point necessarily compels the conclusion that it should be allowed to gestate.
Let’s take a simple example first. My best understanding of the IUD is that it somehow (no one knows quite how) prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. Are you prepared to argue-- without reference to religious or other arguments against the general use of birth control-- that the use of an IUD constitutes a morally culpable killing of a living embryo?