This is such a personal issue for each individual, that government should be neutral in this regard. Let it be a decision of the woman and her doctor, but not funded by any taxpayer money, unless a rape is proven in court. In that case, the bills are paid by the government, but the money will be collected from the rapist’s future earnings (if any). I despise the current system in California where taxpayer money funds abortions on demand for low-income women, regardless of reason.
Explain to me why abortion suddenly becomes ok in cases of rape or incest. If it’s wrong in one case I don’t see how you could say it was ok in another.
XT: Well, you see God, there are all those exceptions and precidence in the bible as well. So, it seems to me that your REAL position is, ‘Thou shalt not kill…except when its ok’. I mean, we as a species kill every day just to live, a design you obviously set up. Are you making an exception for the animals and plants we kill to continue our existance? I’m assuming so. In addition, the bible is full of stories of humans killing humans and being seemingly sanctioned by you. So, there seems to be loopholes a-plenty. Finally, is a fetus ‘life’, as it can’t live on its own without support? In my judgement it isn’t, and since you didn’t weigh in with YOUR observations or pronouncements except after the fact, I think it can be said my decision in this reguard is reasonable.
I believe that your ‘Thou shalt not kill’ statement needs a bit more elaboration to work in the real world (and we won’t mention the apple incident), and I motion for dismissal on the grounds that you were merely being cryptic and your pronouncements deliberately obscure. Finally, we can’t seem to locate your signature or any other indication that this contract was indeed from you. Perhaps you could submit your own copies for us to look over? No? Well in that case, I’ll take the upper cloud appartment on the left with the big pool.
Why would not calling a foetus a life be wrong? Would you then call a placenta life? How about a cyst? Maybe your leg, should we enforce your leg’s right to live against you?
Perhaps.
An unconsious man may return to consiousness by himself later. In the event of a coma, doctors may cease life support and food to accelerate death - same as abortion. Again, morality should not come in to criminal law. When the morality inteferes with the law, minority rights will be unnecessarily curtailed. See the recent gay legislation for an example.
Would you then legislate against adultery, perhaps? Or maybe lying to your wife about going out with the mates at the bar? Perhaps try to outlaw blasphemy, since a whole lotta people (the majority, even) think that that’s immoral?
You haven’t said why a foetus is a life yet. It is not a living thing unto itself - it cannot survive without the woman.
Do you think it’s somehow immoral to, say, speed? Or get a parking ticket? Perhaps jaywalk? Carry around a bag of pot? Have a half open can of beer in your car when driving, even when you haven’t drank any of it?
You are not “killing” the foetus, since it has no life to begin with (define life). It has no more life than your arm. If you cut off your arm, should you be charged with murder? You are only withdrawing your support for it, which should be your right. Again, if a woman wished to withdraw support for her child, she could give it up for adoption. Unfortunately, there is no such option for the foetus.
The basis of the argument - why is a foetus a life? Note that I agree that it is a potential life, but as such, at the current point of time where it is not viable outside the womb, it has no existence seperate from the woman, and thus should have no seperate rights.
Your leg will never turn into another human being.
So, someone on life support in a hospital, who can’t survive without the machine is not a ‘living thing’?
Using the same logic: “at the current point of time Joe cannot survive if taken off life support, so he has no existence separate from the machine, and thus should have no rights”
Just like in the case of the mother/father making the decision in terms of whether to abort or not abort, the decision as to whether or not the person on lifesupport should remain on life support or not is up to those responsible, i.e. the family, unless of course the person on life support can make decisions for themselves or if they have a written will specifying what to do in such a case.
I deliberately didn’t answer it because there is no point. Can god create a rock so big that even he can’t lift it? Its a circular question with no point, because it depends on your interperatation of what ‘life’ is. Ok, so perhaps a person on life support is technically alive (by one definition), even if they have no brain waves. Whats the point? Ok, a fetus is alive…again, so what? So is a bacterium…and so is cancer in that light. In both cases (lifesupport and fetus) neither is able to make a decision, so the decision of life is in the hands of those responsible for making such difficult decisions. Its not your place or my place to foist OUR morals off on someone else when making such a decision. We can either offer our own support and comfort or just STFU and leave them be.
In my little joke discussion with god, I’m using the term ‘life’ loosely to mean ‘a human with a soul’. As I don’t personally BELIEVE in the soul (nor really in god either), it was not a really serious discussion for me…just a joke to counter John’s post.
If I’m ever in a position to actually talk to god, after I get over my total astonishment I’ll have a lot of flames to spread his way (for personal reasons)…if he’s big enough to take them. I certainly won’t be discussing THIS topic with him/her/it.
A bacterium and a cancer will never turn into a human being.
If a woman’s husband is on life support, but is expected by doctors to recover in a few months, can she make the decision to take him off life support? I don’t think anyone would agree to that.
If the husband will never recover, then most people would agree that it is her decision, and a difficult one.
But if he will most likely recover, she has no right to take him off life support. The same with the fetus. Since it will most likely get out of its need for “life support” in a few months, the decision to take it off life support does not belong to anyone.
Yes? And? Whats your point? Is human life supposed to be sacred or something? Have you checked out the situation in Africa lately?
Strawman.
The situations are only comparable because of the decision process, not on a one for one basis as you well know. I’ll grant you though if the life support machines in the hospital get intellegent enough in the future to become sentient and decide they no longer wish to have said person attached to them, we’ll revisit this.
People make decisions to abort a fetus for myriad reasons, not because the fetus is expected not to make it. However, a fetus isn’t a child (IMO), and its a great responsibility to bring another human being into the world…one that some people aren’t ready for or can’t handle. Its THEIR decision because THEY are responsible for it…not you, not me. Why is that so hard to understand for people?
When I see the anti-abortion crowd going forth in the world to help save people (i.e. ACTUAL people who live and think…and are suffering terribly) in Africa, North Korea, etc, then I’ll buy into the whole ‘human life is sacred’ thing.
So what? Do you mean to say that if something had the potential to turn into something that is living, that it was life? Can you say then, a fertilised chicken egg is alive? Or perhaps an acorn? An apple seed?
Additionally, any part of your DNA could concieveable be used as material for cloning - in fact, your leg can turn into another human being.
The point I was arguing was that it had no seperate existence from the woman, and thus the foetus’s rights are joined with the woman’s. Not an argument about life. The argument for life is above.
Only valid if you think that the foetus is life, and not potential life. Joe is already alive.
Oh, so I can go about killing humans and bacteria with no problem and no distinction between the two cases?
Hmmm, that’s an easy way out of answering! I’ll try yelling “strawman” next time I can’t answer a question.
Look, all I was trying to do in my original post to you was point out that the statement “a fetus cannot support itself, therefore it is not alive” is false.
People who believe that the fetus is not alive and/or not human may be correct.
But some of the arguments they use are false. Such as:
it can’t support itself (can we kill people on life support?)
it doesn’t feel pain (can we kill people under general anaesthesia?)
it has no intelligence (can we kill very stupid people?)
The only argument left is that it is not alive and/or human because “it is a bunch of cells”. In my opinion, that is a very weak argument, but you can choose to believe it.
For the purposes of this discusion, you have my leave. But please try and watch any open fires around all these strawmen…
I didn’t make a comment except as a joke about whether a fetus was ‘alive’ (and I already explained I was using the term ‘life’ loosely to mean a sentient being with a soul) or not alive, as its irrelevent. You are building a strawman and then trying to force it upon me. MY point was one of decision, not whether or not the fetus was alive or not alive. A fetus, like your man on lifesupport, is completely dependent on the decisions of those with the responsibility for them. If a woman gets pregnant but decides, for whatever reason not to have the child, the decision is her’s because its her body.
I’m not debating whether the fetus is ‘alive’ or not because to me it doesn’t make any difference. Its seems to make some difference to YOU though, so why not lay out your own position? WHY is it important that the fetus is ‘alive’ to you?
Its certainly not sentient at that point…it only has the POTENTIAL to be sentient. And if we are going to draw some arbitrary line based on ‘life’ and ‘potential’ why stop there? Why not draw the line at the sperm and the egg. They too are ‘alive’. They too have the ‘potential’ to become a human.
For me, this isn’t a matter of morals or theology…its a matter of freedom and personal responsibility. People should be free to make up their own mind on this, to weigh the options for themselves and decide, and they should take responsibility for their decisions either way. Once a child is born it becomes a matter for society because at that point its no longer a part of the woman. Its a separate entity, and society then has some say in its life or death.
It’s got the potential to be alive? (No, wait, that’d admitting that it’s not alive)
It’s got the potential to become a human being? (So does any part of your DNA, and in any case, potential of something does not define alive in the present in any way)
Give a reason, then. Why is a foetus alive, and any other bunch of cells not? “Potential to become a human being?” The past and future are not relevant to the now. What is it NOW? By your logic, everyone has no rights, because they will eventually be dead, and dead people have no rights.
Incorrect. There are those people who are personally opposed to abortion, but don’t feel it is a matter for the law. A parallel is recreational drug use. Libertarians support the legalization of drugs; however many choose themselves never to use them. They just don’t feel they should use the law to force their opinion on me.
I’m not arguing that it’s alive (I gave no arguments that it is alive).
I was arguing that the arguments put forth by the “it’s not alive” camp are false.
Well, I assume that if we establish that something is alive, and it is human, then we should not kill it.
In general, for several reasons, society is against killing live human beings (I assume you’re with me on this). So, if we were to establish that the fetus is alive and it is a human being, then killing it would be a bad thing.
And if we were to establish that a fetus is alive and is a human being, then the mother does not have absolute rights over the life if this fetus, just as she does not have absolute right over the life of her born children.
If, of course the fetus is a “thing” (i.e. not a human being or not alive), then the mother can indeed do whatever she wants with it.
So, to summarize, it seems that the arguments put forth by both sides of the argument (“it’s alive & human”, “is not alive or human”) are false because they lead to illogical conclusions when applied to other situations. So, it seems that the reason people believe one way or another has nothing to do with logic, even though they give “logical” arguments to support their view. It has everything to do with how people feel about the issue.
A better question is: can we force other people to use their bodies to keep others alive? Should I be legally required to donate blood, tissues, and organs against my will to keep other people alive? Even if it was my own son or daughter? Donating my bodily resources may be the morally proper thing to do, but should we put people in prison for not being generous in lending their bodies to others?
No, but people under general anaesthesia have a brain structure which represents a lifetime or thoughts, feelings, emotions, and interactions. That personality structure (which I consider to be a “soul”, even if it’s existence is purely physical and not metaphysical) is already established and exists in the present day world.
An unborn does not have this. Any personality or self identity it may have resides in a hypothetical future. It’s “soul” has not developed yet. Preventing that hypothetical future from coming into being by abortion has the same practical effect as preventing it by not having sex in the first place.
No, but we can kill braindead people by terminating their life support.
I think it’s a pretty strong argument. If you were to look at a human embryo and a monkey embryo, could you tell the difference? Why is a human embryo sacred and a monkey embryo nonsacred? What objective distinctions can be made to value one and not the other?