Well, perhaps I was overly flippant, but it’s largely the same thing I was saying to JThunder: The fact that a child would say now that he or she is glad he or she was not aborted isn’t really a relevant argument. It’s tangential. A zygote has no preferences. It might, in the future, if successfully carried to term and delivered, but it doesn’t right now.
If you’re going to use the fact that it might in the future as an anti-abortion argument, then carrying it to its most absurd iteration, women should be pregnant whenever possibly because their ova, when fertilized, will have preferences at some future point. This is, of course, a silly argument, which I hope nobody holds. But it’s equally silly to say, “Abortion should be illegal because if the child is carried to term and delivered, it will be glad, when it is able to speak and express ideas, that it was not aborted.”
And, again, can we please leave the infanticides and the coma patients and the persistent vegetative states out of it? There is no reason to assume that because someone carries a certain opinion regarding fetuses and embryos that they carry the same opinion about comatose adults. There is nothing inherent in the two situations which requires people to treat them the same.
Are you calling me a liar? Or are you just unwilling to admit that not everyone feels the same way you do? I think you are underestimating the angst that a few (and its a very few, in my experience) adoptees feel.
Just because you wish you’d never been born doesn’t mean you have the will to kill yourself. There is a difference between wishing you didn’t exist and wishing you were dead.
I’m having no luck finding a public journal in the amount of time I’m willing to spend on it. (I have on my old computer at home an e-mail message from a young adult I corresponded with briefly, but her story is not mine to share).
Some people do thing the two are inherently the same. Hence the comparison. Just because you feel differently does not make it so.
Dangerosa
I did not call you a liar, however, I did say it was uneducated in the context of my original post and the two examples I gave above. Many people wish they were dead or never existed. And alot more are unhappy in life. But to say that they are unhappy is because they were not aborted I find ludicrous. True they would not be unhappy in life if they were aborted. They would be dead! Also true that childrens unhappiness is usually not their own fault. But, again, I say that living is not the cause of their unhappiness. It is either something they did to themselves or others did to them…In life. And not all children who were abandoned are worse off because of it. So to use that as an argument for abortion is is stupid is my argument.
Umm…because an unfertilized egg has neither a full complement of chromosomes nor the capacity for cell division, both of which are necessary in order to be a living organism?
A cancer cell has a full set of chromosomes. It can divide pretty well, too. And so what?
I am a person.
I do not have the capacity for totipotent cell division (that means generation of every type of cell.)
Therefore, capacity for cell division is not a requirement for personhood.
Analogy: You are the only living organ donor for a particular person. You choose not to give up your organs for someone else, who dies. Murder? If not, replace person with fetus, and see what you get.
Errr… no kidding. Suffice it to say that you are 1)wrong, 2)incorrect, and 3) mistaken.
The statistics you cited suggest that the reason so few white couples adopt black children is that before the laws mentioned were passed, it was a matter of state law (in our case) and adoption agency policy that children of one race were not to be placed with parents of a different race if it could be avoided. This (in my opinion) idiotically racist law has since been rescinded. And none too soon.
We spent a total of about five years on the waiting list for our two children - and neither are the same race as me or Mrs. Shodan. We were fingerprinted, credit checked, background checked, criminal checked, interviewed, home studied, and paperworked - twice.
So in our case, it wasn’t any faster, it wasn’t any easier, and we didn’t want only white infants.
Longtime lurker, de-lurking to add some personal observations and continue the hijack…
*You can’t pre-suppose the double play. Meaning, that if you assume prior to birth that a baby may grow up to be the next Nobel Peace prize winner or world leader, by the same token, they could end up as the next Hitler or Charles Manson. Too many variables are involved to make the analogy in one direction only.
*[Pet Peeve] A child is never a “consequence” or furthermore, a punishment. Although being responsible for one’s actions is always a good and admirable trait, going ahead and giving birth just to follow through with someone else’s preconceived notions that you ‘hold up to your end of the bargain’ because of your _____________ (fill-in-the-blank… immaturity? irresponsibility? selfishness? carelessness? whatever), is ludicrous at best. A person should want that addition to their lives, not view it as an interruption, disaster or as loathsome. I agree with whoever said it is a self-less act to voluntarily go against the flow and NOT have a child, if for whatever reason the baby can’t be top priority, totally loved and desperately wanted above ALL else. [/Pet Peeve]
*Lastly, the question was asked, “Where are the pro-choice people after a woman chooses abortion?” I’m taking this to imply that there aren’t any of these folks dealing with the emotional aftermath. Well, extrapolate that to “Where are the pro-life people after a woman chooses not to have an abortion?” When… if this same person isn’t mature enough to raise the child or support it financially? If they have horrible parenting skills inherited from their parents and then they pass them on to said infant in the form of abuse? Or any other variety of terrible outcomes that happen after that initial decision is made. Why aren’t the people that are so concerned with the rights of the unborn baby before, concerned with their rights to a healthy, happy life once they are here?
Sorry, but your analogy does not work. Your analogy requires only an act of omission - not giving up your organs - to cause the person to die.
In abortion, the fetus already has its necessary organ. When you abort it, it is an act of commission to take that away. A more accurate analogy is the following: there’s a person on life support machines. The doctors say that although he needs the life support machines for now, it’s almost certain that he will be able to survive independently if the current course of life support is continued. The payments that pay for the machine’s power are automatically deducted from your bank account, but while it does cause some discomfort, it won’t bankrupt you. Now, if you pull the plug on this life-support machine - is that murder? If so, replace person with fetus, and see what you get.
If you end someone’s life, then it is a loss in every real sense of the word.
Besides, are you seriously suggesting that the fetus would not truly lose anything, simply because all its dreams may never be reached? If so, then that very argument is fatal to pepperlandgirl’s claim – namely, that having a child would “destroy” herr future life. One has no way of knowing that one will ever attain your dreams, or even come close. So if you say that the fetus doesn’t suffer any real loss, since its hopes and dreams are all in the future, then the deprivation of one’s life ambitions is not a loss “in any real sense of the word” either.
It is not a slippery slope argument. Slippery slope arguments presume that an action is a step on the path to wrongdoing. In contrast, the deprivation of the unborn’s life and future is a wrongful act in and of itself.
Quite the contrary. Pro-lifers believe that such lines are arbitrary – and thus, fallacious. (More on that later.)
Once again, I think you’re mischaracterizing my positions. As I repeatedly said before, I am not saying that pro-choicers draw no distinction between abortion and infanticide. Rather, the moral distinction between the two is arbitrary, and thus, not justified by moral principles.
But by your own admission, it IS abritrary – and thus, not justified by moral, logical or scientific principles. In fact, here is how dictionary.com defines the word “arbitrary”:
Clearly, if you say that your moral stance is arbitrary, that is not something to be proud of.
At no point, however, did I claim that you agreed with the extreme implications of legal abortion. That’s not the point. Rather, the point is that it is morally inconsistent to simultaneously condone abortion and reject infanticide (or for that matter, the killing of physical invalids), when one’s arguments apply equally well to both circumstances. This means that one must either accept both, or reject both – that is, if one wishes to be consistent, rather than arbitrary.
Right. Just like “after one’s 16th birthday” is the arbitrary line where we decide human beings may drive cars in the United States, “after recognizable brain activity begins, with limited emergency exceptions” is a reasonable arbitrary line to draw, IMO, regarding abortion. And “after it exits the womb” is a reasonable arbitrary line to draw after which all cases of deliberatel killing a human being are homicide. (As distinguished from the legal concept “murder.”)
Um, says you. Thanks, but if any gods exist, I’ll leave judgement on my moral stance and behavior to them, not you.
A foolish consistently is, as we all know, the hobgoblin of small minds. To treat 3-week embryos exactly like physical invalids or newborn infants or comatose adults simply for the sake of consistency, with no regards to the ways in which the situations are in fact different, is, well, foolish.
:::sigh::: No, I’m saying that the loss is from your perspective, not from the fetus’s perspective. The fetus does not even have a perspective. It isn’t even possible, prior to a particular point in fetal development. At a certain point, it does not even have a brain, or eyes, let alone knowledge of the concepts of “loss,” “dream” or “perspective.”
No, but one has a way of knowing that they have them and wants to try to attain them. A fetus does not.
plg knows that a child is something that she does not want in her life at this time or the foreseeable future. She is taking steps to avoid having a child. Should she become pregnant anyway, she would do what she felt she must to avoid delivering or raising the child. That’s sufficient for me.
Not a reasonable analogy. The 16th-birthday dividing line is used because we need SOME sort of guideline – some way of determining when someone has the maturity to drive on a regular basis (as opposed to merely taking the driving test). Not all 16-year-olds will meet this test, but we need some sort of standard.
The same does not hold in the abortion issue. To claim, “Well, we need SOME sort of dividing line, before which we can kill the fetus or infant” is circular reasoning. It assumes that you MUST provide some provision for ending its life, which is precisely the matter under debate.
Moreover, driving is a mere privilege, whereas life is the most fundamental, by far, of all human rights. As such, it deserves ultimate protection, and should not be subject to mere “arbitrary” distinctions.
Well, then, we’ll simply agree to disagree. I simply do not believe (although I did at one time) that a newly-fertilized but unimplanted zygote has the same legal status, rights, or protections as me, or my niece, or my father. Nor should it, nor is there any logical reason to think that it should. Nor should it apply to an implanted embryo that does not yet have differentiated organs. I feel comfortable drawing an arbitrary line at the point in fetal development where recognizable brain activity begins. I also feel nearly as comfortable with a law requiring every single anti-abortion activist to adopt at least one already-born child.
And (again) taken to its most absurd extreme, a fundamental right to life would mean making my vasectomy illegal, because I was denying a right to life to potential combinations of my sperm and my wife’s eggs. A right to live does not include a right to be born.
JTThunder, you’re still dodging the issue. Either you provide a concise definition of humanity as it applies to fetuses/zygotes/etc., or you accept that conception is as arbitrary as birth for personhood to begin.
I’m not sure that “humanity” and “personhood” are equivalent notions. From a common pro life view, the z/e/f is human life at different stages of development.
That the z/e/f is a unique human life can be determined via genetics/biology/embryology etc…
The idea of “personhood” is a philosophical notion not directly rooted in science. It’s a notion arived at culturally or through arbitrary structures like sentience or viability. (I use “arbitrary” in the sense that you will have a huge disparity in definitions of personhood among the pro choice community)
If you’re a black man in 1840, you’re not a full “person”, for example.
My point was that under a certain set of conditions, a z/e/f (convienent phrase, I’m stealing it) COULD become a huma- perso- oh, hell, an adult. Such conditions could also apply to, say, gametes, with the exception that in addition to the presence of a uterus in a body drenched with progesterone, a sperm cell also needs an egg cell to become a perso- an adult.
And what’s this unique bit? Are identical twins not people? Okay, cheap shot, but I still want a better explanation.
Also, while we’re on the subject, what about fertility clinics. They take sperm and eggs, mix 'em up, and throw away the ones they don’t want. Yet, no one has bomed the fertility clinic near my house.
I hope you read the linked article above that outlined the significant difference between gametes and zygotes.
**
I’m not sure I understand your point. The “unique” bit refers to the product of fertilization…it is unique and different from the mother (or father) …it is genetically distinct.
**
[/quote]
Also, while we’re on the subject, what about fertility clinics. They take sperm and eggs, mix 'em up, and throw away the ones they don’t want. Yet, no one has bomed the fertility clinic near my house. **
[/QUOTE]
What about them? Are you suggesting that pro lifers are not bothered by fertility clinics (I guess your test is whether thet get bombed? Unless you’re willing to lump all environmentalists with Earth First, and all vegans with PETA, you might wish to lay off the generalizations. :rolleyes:)
Of course the pro life community is diverse much like the pro choice community, but many pro life folks do have problems with fertility clinics.
I was going to drop out of this, but one of my questions hasn’t been answered, and it’s really bothering me. You believe that millions of people are dying each year…what are you doing to stop it? Other than arguing with somebody on an annonymous MB?
Seriously, is anybody adopting, or taking foster children? Are you educating students about birth control? Mentoring? Teaching teenagers, children, and young adults about responsible sex? Starting, or funding, programs designed to help young, single mothers (or fathers) stay in school while raising children? Is anybody working in the justice system to make sure that men (or boys) do their part to support unwanted children?
This isn’t going to stop until the under lying social problems have been abolished. So, what are you doing to stop it? Honestly, I might take all of you a bit more seriously if I knew what you were doing in your communities to stem the problem.
