The fact that the “host” knowingly undertook a process that would put themselves in that situation means that it’s not morally equivalent to finding an intruder in your home. It would be more like dragging someone in, or at least putting up a lot of “GARAGE SALE” signs and then acting all surprised when people show up.
Sure, they can show up, but they don’t get to stay for nine months. They don’t in fact, get to legally stay any longer than the homeowner wants them to. For that matter, picture having a garage sale and people come and go. Then the homeowner discovers while checking the attic that one of them left a child behind. The homeowner isn’t legally required to give the child room and board for the better part of a year.
By your argument they don’t even get to come. I’m perfectly within my rights to invite everyone over and then unceremoniously boot them off my property. In real life this would be considered quite the dick move, and I’m not even killing my would-be guests.
If it makes you happy, I’m sure women could tell them to leave first.
As jsgoddess points out, you can be as polite about it as you want, but it’s a simple enough concept - do you have the right to remove people from your property?
You’re not a person until you’re in my phone book.
(Thanks again, Bill Hicks)
Somehow I doubt many women set out to get pregnant, then have an abortion.
And no, having sex is not only about having children. Humans are not built to have sex only for reproduction; we aren’t cattle. We are built to have lots of sex which will only occasionally result in children, even without birth control.
wait for it… wait for it… waaaaiiiit fooor iiit… THERE! personpersonpersonperson!
I love how Peter Singer dared even arguing for infanticide being less of a moral problem than the killing of some animals. There’s no magic dividing lines, killing just becomes more and more problematic the more the “victim”/victim becomes entangled in this “life”-thing. Being more open to judge each ethical dilemma on its own would save us a lot of inessential and misleading discussion of definitions.
Here’s a question for anti-abortion advocates: Does a fertilized egg have a soul? Is it entitled to every consideration that a breathing baby gets?
I once read a rather surprising (to me) statistic (No cite available; it was in a newspaper over 20 years ago. Sorry.): The average fertile, sexually active woman is “pregnant” a couple of dozen times in her life, but her body spontaneously aborts most of these fertilized eggs without the mother ever even knowing they were in her. Do these miscarriages rate a full funeral service?
Prior to 1869 (their first formal prohibition of all abortion), the Catholic Church recognized something called “quickening,” when the unborn baby passed a threshold of viability. After about thirteen weeks, the fetus was hardy enough that it would probably be born alive, and at this point the Church considered it to have a soul and to be a person.
Not sure why they abandoned this viewpoint, but it makes sense to me.
What happens to the soul of a frozen embryo? Does it freeze? Does it hang around the embryo until it is inserted in a womb? Can the souls pop in and out? If the embryo is not placed in a womb and is not baptized, what happens to it? What is the difference between soul and life? If the life leaves the embryo does the soul still remain?
Sure, people do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. I even hear people dress up as animals and go to conventions.
Nevertheless, if you’re old enough to be having sex, you’re old enough to realize that that’s where babies come from and there’s a nonzero chance of you getting pregnant. The problem I have with the “intruder in your home” argument is the faux-surprise element, as though babies rain from the sky and there’s nothing you can do to avoid 'em. I’m sure we can all agree that if you don’t want to be pregnant, it’s worse to be pregnant than not-pregnant, both for the woman and for the fetus (whose personhood, at least at some stage of abortionable development, has been conceded upthread). A woman who has sex, however, has accepted a probabilistic risk of pregnancy, and thus cannot be said to have zero responsibility for the existence of the fetus.
Now you can say that this nonzero responsibility still isn’t big enough to justify having the woman carry the baby to term. But you can’t play upon the idea of an intruder whom the homeowner did not invite inside. Again, it’s not like you walk down the street and hey, surprise, baby!
I believe in souls, and that our soul is what makes us who we are. My beliefs are a bit different from the mainstream, but I think the soul enters the body at the moment of birth and not before. The last transformation from potential to actual personhood.
The analogies being used are flawed. It’s not like having a random visitor for 9 months. It’s like you accidentally invited in your wife’s 2nd cousin, and he decides not only to stay for nine months (whether you want him to or not), but to rip out a few walls (leaving large holes), reposition the door, break half the windows, and water your couch. Not only that, he steals and hides your food, laces everything you do get to eat with hot peppers, and randomly walks up to you and smacks you hard enough to make your nose bleed. If you’re going to use a houseguest/property analogy, you have to take into account the involuntary changes made to the “house” and the internal damage done. A woman who gets pregnant LITERALLY has the nutrients ripped from her bones to create/build this new life. I’m not putting a toe in on whether abortion should be done or not, just trying to make people realize the severity of the “intrusion”.
So? Along with that responsibility, she has (or I see no valid argument why she should not have) full authority to continue or terminate the pregnancy.
All birth control methods have a failure rate and some women will be subjected to rape. For them, the baby is a “surprise”. I don’t see the value in punishing these women just so we can teach a lesson to, you imply, some irresponsible slut who gets herself knocked up. Yes, I definitely can play upon the unwanted intruder idea, because as I believe one should have the right to control who or what stays in one’s home (even if the situation is partly or wholly of one’s own creation), an even greater imperative exists to control who or what stays in one’s body (even if the situation is partly or wholly of one’s own creation).
What is a soul composed of? When one dies, it is believed that the soul leaves the body;where does the life go,and what is the difference? Does the soul invade the body like some believe a demon does?
Doesn’t one’s genetic makeup and enviroment have something to do with what one becomes?
Well, there seems to be a mix of 3 opinions in this thread. I think the question of ‘what makes a person’ is pretty vital, because, regardless of which camp you are in, at some point in time, a fetus goes from existing solely at its mother’s discretion to having rights of its own, despite what the mother wants.
For some people (‘Fetus isn’t a person’ ), this only happens presumably at birth. But the problem with that is that ‘birth’ is also a drawn out process. The loop holes I see with this logic:
-
How much of the fetus needs to be out before it has rights of its own? 100%? People who support partial-birth abortion seem to argue for that. As long as some part of the fetus is still in the mother, the mother has the right to not only remove it, but also over its very existence. What about other body parts that are placed in the mother. She obviously has the right to have them removed, but does she have the right over it’s very existence because it is inside her? Is it the umbilical cord that makes the difference?
-
A baby that is recently born is still connected to the mother via the umbilical cord for several minutes. What is the state of the baby at this point? Does it have rights of its own? I think most people would say yes. If so, the umbilical cord seems to be irrelevant. How does this square with #1?
For other people(quite a few in this thread, it seems, and I would think most people at large, as well), the ‘personhood’ happens along the way, and that it affects the mother’s rights. This the toughest to define, but it seems to require that at least some sort of measurable thing, an ‘event’, has changed in the fetus. Brain activity, quickening, etc. For those with this position:
- Do you think that testing for the particular ‘event’ is reasonable before allowing an abortion?
- Does a mother have the obligation to abort before that time, or else forfeit those rights?
- Does the fetus ever acquire squatters rights? (Adverse possession) after that ‘event’?
The last group (‘personhood’ doesn’t matter) is probably the one I understand least. If ‘personhood’ doesn’t matter, why should it ever matter? Catfight listed a bunch of conditions where we, as a society, might force a death upon someone, but it seems to me that in all those cases, there was still ‘personhood’ and the associated rights being protected. There never was the opportunity for a single person to exercise a life/death decision on someone else without satisfying societies preconditions first.
I don’t want to hijack this thread, and like I said above, my beliefs aren’t mainstream. I don’t pretend to know all of the answers by any means, all I can say is what I believe.
I don’t know what a soul is composed of. I don’t believe it can be measured or quantified by science, though.
And, I suppose, according to how I imagine it, it would be along the lines of a demon invasion. That it enters the body and resides there, so yes. 
And certainly genetics and environment play a huge role in who you become. Your soul retains the deeper, larger life lessons.
When you die, your soul goes to the other side to rest. To recharge. To review. To come back when it’s ready. That you determine the general path for your next life time in order to best learn the lessons you haven’t finished learning. The school of life, I suppose.
I don’t believe you have to have religion. I don’t believe everyone is on the same path, or that anyone is learning the same lessons at the same time. I think that we are too deep to only have one life, or that when we die we’re just gone. I don’t think we just sit around heaven for eternity playing harps. Eternity is a really long time and that would get boring.
Can I prove any of it? No. It is what it is. No one really knows what happens when we die, this is just my belief. The only thing that makes sense to me at my core.
Picture a cyst inside your body. It won’t kill you, but it is growing and will becoming an increasing physical burden. If you express a desire to have it removed, someone blocks you while claiming the removal is not God’s will.
Who should make the final decision; you, or them? It’s not any more complicated than that.
Pro-choicers, like any group of humans, have a spectrum of motivations and viewpoints on this issue. Painting them as all having the same opinion does them a disservice and weakens your argument.
So does being pro-choice have automatic implications for one’s opinion on euthanasia, vaccination, or elective surgeries a la Michael Jackson or the girl who wanted to look like a Barbie?
We restrict people’s choices for medical treatments all the time, and just try to live in a modern society without vaccinations, and see how enormous the pressure of society can be.
Enjoy,
Steven
Isn’t that more of an argument for "A fetus isn’t a person’ than ‘personhood doesn’t matter’?