I have no problem recognizing that aborting a fetus is killing a human being. Human beings far further along in their physical and mental development than fetuses get legally killed all the time.
I believe that the life of each human being has a beginning and an end. I further believe that during the time inbetween each human being has certain rights and that these rights should be equal for each of us.
The end of our life is commonly defined as the moment when our brain ceases to function. That makes sense. We know that the cessation of higher brain functions after a certain point is irreversible and that at this point everything that makes us human - our thoughts, emotions, memories, our entire personality - is gone. (I am aware that those who believe in the existence of an immortal soul might disagree here. But that concept is part of a religious belief system. For the scientic view on things it is not a factor.)
If we define the cessation of higher brain functions as the end of our life, it seems consistent to assume the onset of these functions as its beginning. Science today cannot precisely tell us, at what moment our thoughts and emotions actually start. It could happen at the very moment when the brain starts working or it could develop weeks later - but it cannot be any earlier. Before that time the embryo is more similar to the body of a braindead person. It functions on a certain level, but it is more like an automaton.
Coming back to your question regarding the comatose brother: You are of course right in that it would not be ok to kill him. His coma does not change the fact that he is a human being. He has a personality and that personality has not yet ceased to exist. That means he has all the rights any of us have - including the right to live.
If the doctors had told me that he is braindead, the situation would be different. In that situation it would be morally defensible (even commendable) to use his liver as a donor organ, even though that would end the life of this remaining body.
No, i just see a huge difference between “killing a human being” and “not being forced to save a human being”. Even if i saw a fetus as a human being that still would not be reason enough to force women to surrender their body to keep them alive. We don’t force people to give blood, we don’t even force dead people to surrender their organs, the idea that women should be forced to surrender their bodies for the benefit of another human being is simply barbaric. Even if you want to give a fetus human rights those rights would never include the right to another persons body.
Yeah, but two wrongs don’t make a right, right? Not that I am defending it, but at least gov’ts have the reasoning of self-defense or removing proven danger from society.
Is that so? Can you really not be forced to save another human being?
I am not entirely familiar with American law so this is a factual Question. In Germany you are obliged by law to lend aid to a person in a situation of emergency. If you see a motorcyclist who had an accident and you let him die by the roadside, because you just couldn’t be bothered, you can be charged with “Unterlassene Hilfeleistung” (failure to lend aid). Maximum sentence is one year in prison. Of course there are lots of qualifiers. For example you are not required to put yourself in a dangerous situation in order to help.
Is there no such legal obligation in the US or Canada? I am not saying that the situation is directly comparable to a pregnancy. I know that it is not. I just would be surprised that you are entirely “not being forced to save a human being” whatever the circumstances.
Well what if a fetus was a human being? there isn’t one single other instance were you would force a human being to surrender their body by force to be used by another without their consent, not even to save their life.
I believe some states might have laws like that, yes. The important part is the surrendering of their body in order to make it happen, that’s why there are qualifiers to laws like that. But since you admit this is not the same as a pregnancy I don’t really follow how it matters to the discussion.
Well yes and no. Yes, human beings are on occasion legally killed.
But how many situations are there where human beings are intentionally killed without being accused of any wrongdoing?
That’s just the wrong way of looking at things. Plenty of people die every day because they were denied life saving organ transplants or blood transfusions. It is tragic and it would be wonderful if more people chose to donate blood or organs, but it is not required of them. We understand even if people are dying they are not entitled to another person’s body against their will. Stop comparing abortions to executions, a fetus has no more right to a females body than i have a right to your kidney even if i would die without it.
It might have mattered if the law had actually said that you can never be held responsible for the life of another. I believe that there are situations where we are responsible for someone else’s life and there are others where we are not. So we need to find out which one we have here.
I am not comparing abortions to executions. It was not me, who brought up the argument “other people are legally killed all the time”.
Let’s say a (sufficiently developed) fetus was a human being. If it were not, we would not be having an argument.
You say that there is no instance where you can make someone surrender their body for the benefit of someone else. Fair enough.
What about your house? Can you be forced to give shelter in you house to someone you do not want there? I suppose that you cannot. But what about the newborn baby you just brought home? Can you kick her out at night, if you do not want her there anymore? Of course not. The state forces you to provide shelter to the baby at least for as long as it takes to transfer custody to someone else. Why can the state do that? Because you have assumed responsibility for the child by taking it home in the first place.
Is that how adoption works? i seriously doubt that.
I do not see the connection. Where does adoption come in here?
I assumed that’s what you meant by “transferring custody to someone else”. Either way, yes once you make the voluntary choice of having a baby and not giving it up for adoption you are stuck with it unless you find someone else to take it. I still don’t see how that is comparable to forcing someone to go through a pregnancy.
Mine as well, as did my adoption, and my infertility.
My infertility taught me that miscarriages happen, and honestly no one but the parents give a damn about a wanted baby that doesn’t happen because your body said “nope” during the first three months. If those were children, many of us would have lost many many children - I couldn’t reconcile that and retain my sanity.
My adoption taught me that its a huge sacrifice to have a child and give it to someone else to raise. And that it isn’t a bed of roses path for the adoptive child or the adoptive parents either. Its a good option, its something I am very grateful for, but it isn’t a choice I can make for birth mothers or other adoptive parents. The adoptive children don’t always grow up thrilled with the decision that was made on their behalf, but since they are too young to hold an opinion when it happens, they get stuck.
My pregnancy taught me that a pregnancy is not a minor inconvenience. I missed hours of work for bed rest, fatigue, doctors appointments - fortunately, I was salaried. If I was hourly, it would have cost me thousands. It did cost me thousands to give birth, since maternity leave was only 40% covered (and I’m thankful for that) - and since I couldn’t walk due to my tear for three weeks (farther than the bathroom) my maternity leave was needed. My body has never been the same, I have chronic low level pain as a result of my pregnancy and after sixteen years and a gazillion kegals, I still have to wear a pad when running and leak when I sneeze. I had serious PPD that needed to be treated - my grandmother never got over hers and it killed her. I have a number of friends whose gestational diabetes became just diabetes, it didn’t clear up after birth.
When we support mandatory organ donation, mandatory blood donation, and mandatory registration for bone marrow matching - when we are willing to increase taxes to make sure homeless people don’t freeze on the streets because we value human life, and stop bitching about socialized medicine because we should be valuing life enough that we are willing to pay for “someone else’s” cancer treatment, when we stop thinking that civilian collateral damage is acceptable - then I’ll feel like society might have gotten to a place where they can criticize what a woman chooses to do with her own body. Right now, it feels hypocritical that “oh, my God, I don’t want to pay for someone else to have a roof over their head or access to medical care” but “you should put your body at risk to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.”
I support allowing abortions during the first trimester. If a woman chooses not to have one, even though she has been given the opportunity, she is making a voluntary choice. She allows the fetus to mature to a point where I consider it to be human. By that choice, I believe, she assumes a responsibility. That is why I feel it is comparable.
As you state above, your entire approach to abortion is premised on the nonexistence of the immortal soul, so unsurprisingly, those of us who disagree with your premise also disagree with the conclusion.
Indeed. But if you argument is based entirely on your religious belief, you can hardly expect those who do not share that belief to live according to it. You would be forcing your religion upon others.
Well, Terr was kind enough to post a list earlier of situations where he was okay with killing human beings, one of which was judicial execution. He chose not to include abortion and I do.