So we shouldn’t prosecute people who rob pharmacies to obtain life-sustaining medicines?
So we should fund more public hospitals and public health programs, so that people who need surgeries for survival but can’t afford them can get them?
So if a starving homeless person showed up on your doorstep, you would take them in and feed them?
I hope you’re a lefty on economic issues, cause otherwise that’s a pretty hypocritical statement.
We are talking about morals, not law and not religion in the OP, that is unless I missed another critical memo.
There is a moral law so to speak, but the ability to enforce it is also a moral issue. I don’t give the state the moral right to enforce all moral issues. We can say that homosexuality is morally wrong, but also have no moral right to stop it in others. This is where free will has to enter the picture. People have the right to make mistakes that effect themselves, but not their baby.
You like to say that they is no baby, but I don’t believe in your heart that you believe this for a second. However lets see how cold your heart really is:
Should someone be held accountable by ending a pregnancy of a women who wants that baby?
For these 2 we do already, no hospital can deny emergency medical care in the US, no need to rob anyone.
Using the above they have the ability to go to the nearest hospital to get live saving, well in this case food.
Kanicbird, like you I believe the fetus is a living human being. The only difference between a fetus and a toddler, IMO, is time, nurture and relocation.
That said, I disagree strongly with your above statement. Does this mean you’re in favour of forceable organ donation and blood donation? I have two kidneys. I am a match for Joe Blow down the road. He will die without my kidney.
Can he legally force me to take it?
Does he have a moral right to take my kidney?
Should laws = morals?
The OP was also talking to pro-choicers.
And the belief that a blastocyte is a person is purely religious.
There is no baby. You saying it is so does not make it so. You are trying to codify a religious belief into law. Trying to get the governmemnt to say a zygote is a person is no different than trying to get the government to say a dog is a person. It’s purely a faith based belief.
I do believe it. Absolutely. There is no baby. I have no belief in “souls,” or the like so I define a “baby” in purely biological terms. If something has not yet developed any sentience, it isn’t a person, as far as I’m concerned.
Yes. But the victim is the woman, not the fetus. It is a disgusting and horrific violation of that woman both physically and emotionally.
If that’s your definition of rape then I’ve been raped, so I can speak from personal experience that rape’s not always that big a deal. I’ll experience worse traumas than that on most any given week. If you were offended by my earlier comparison I would hope you would be doubly offended if I were to offer condolences to a real raped-by-a-stranger-at-the-point-of-a-knife victim by saying, “Oh, I understand what you’re going through. Y’know I was raped once myself.”
Not all rapes are alike, not all rape victims are alike, and not all rape traumas are alike. Neither you nor I can know how a rape victim will cope with the experience. The same can be said about any kind of traumatic experience. The short and long term consequences will vary dramatically from person to person.
This OP is about which situations may justify abortions, and I have talked about the rape and incest exception to the abortion proscription. If one’s anti-abortion stand is based on the idea that life begins at conception, then I don’t see how you can justify abortion even in the case of rape or incest. The fetus is not guilty of any crime.
On the other hand if your exception to an abortion ban is based on trauma to the woman, then I don’t see rape or incest as necessarily an event that would cause more trauma to the woman than any number of other factors.
As I see it, he only legitimate reasoning for the rape or incest exception is if your objection to abortion is based on some kind of slutty-women-should-pay-for-getting-themselves-knocked-up thinking. That, at least, is logically consistent.
Ah, so you’re a heart-reader. How black is mine, praytell?
Yes, the attacker should be held accountable in that situation, because he/she has assaulted the woman, as well as deprived her of her property (the fetus, not being an independent entity, is classified as bodily property). It’s not murder, because the fetus isn’t a human life. It’s a life in the way that a parasite is alive, but it is not the same as you or me. IMO, of course, but in this case science and the law are on my side.
Crazy hypothetical time: it’s the year 2798. You come back from Venus infested with a sentient parasite. It’s dormant now, but in a year it will explode out of your stomach (which will be very painful, but only carries a slight risk of death, say five percent), and will be able to speak perfect English and play the piano beautifully. You didn’t ask to be infested with this parasite–it attached itself to you without your knowledge while you were out collecting rock samples. You don’t want it in you. Do you have the right to get rid of it?
I like the hypothetical but let;s also assume that the alien Bible says it’s a sin for puny humans to abort the alien “baby.”
Bolding mine.
See, that is the point I’m trying to make. Since the baby is blameless, we shouldn’t enforce a life on them that isn’t as good as we can make it. Hardships aside, you (generally speaking) thrust a child into a world with already several strikes against them, is IMHO, just wrong. Now I realize that the “life isn’t fair” argument can be used here, but that’s where I think the parents come in to make responsible decisions for the future. Mainly, the potential humans, much less emphasis should be put on their own.
bnorton said it best, although I think we see from opposite sides of this issue. “The fetus is not guilty of any crime.” And therefore should be held culpable for passed along mental illness, being the child of rape (any kind) or incest, such abject poverty that stealing, etc. might be considered standard and necessary and/or subjected to abusive (sexually, physically, mentally, chemically) treatment. That, again IMHO, is what is the absolute most important. My morality for myself is irrelevant compared to what life, through me, has available to offer them. Because they are the ones who’ll have to actually live it.
Faithfool I am debating here as an atheist opposed to abortion. God and religion do not play into my opinions. Let me also add that this situation sucks. I mean it really fucking sucks and it sucks that society has to come and clean up the mess.
I am also wavering back and forth on this one too. I certainly don’t support forcing the woman to raise the child. I guess I believe that with proper counseling and treatment this child could have a relatively happy life. When in doubt I choose life over death.
If a child loses his parents in a tragic accident we don’t kill the child becuase he will have to face hardship. I guess I don’t want the child killed becuase I would rather the mother suffer for 9 months than to kill an innocent life.
I would say it depends on how the parasite was acquired, and how sentient it was when I acquired it.
First off, if I was out collecting rock samples on Venus, I would very likely be wearing some kind of insulated suit with lots of coolant between the layers and a breathing apparatus, so the liklihood of my picking up such a parasite would be vanishingly remote.
Now, let’s say I get back to the space capsule, and notice that one of the rock samples is, er, interestingly shaped, and, having been deprived of the company of the male of our species for far too long, decide to, er, amuse myself with it. Unbeknownst to me, there is a small parasite larva on the rock which, purely following raw instinct, finds its way into my uterus and takes up residence. I would say that, since the parasite is essentially innocent, sentient, and in all likelihood will do me no harm, beyond some severe discomfort, I would say that no, I don’t have the right to get rid of it. Also, I’m partial to the earlier music of Elton John, which is very piano-heavy.
OTOH, if the parasite were a miniature version of the adult, or at least had the intellectual capacities of an adult, and took advantage of an opportunity presented as I was bending over to pick up a dropped towel after I stepped out of the shower, I would say that the parasite had no more right to inhabit my personal space than I would to force someone to donate a kidney to me if I needed it, and Elton John be damned. In that case I would have a right to get rid of it, because the parasite had knowingly forced itself upon me.
I do understand where you’re coming from. I used to be a very staunch Pro-Life advocate, but the above statement was one of the things that help change my mind. I can’t, in good conscience, just hope for the better opportunities that my offspring might face. I couldn’t make the determination, under every circumstance, that life IS better. Not to mention, I’m of the camp that feels like a lot of people do about where our souls are before we’re born… they’re just non-existent. So, I don’t feel that not allowing the baby/fetus (however you want to look at it) to live is equivalent to death. Because again, that we be me choosing for them. Does that make sense?
I’m sorry, but this seems like apples to oranges to me. Of course you wouldn’t kill a child who’s lost parents to something tragic, because s/he is already here, with a mind of their own to use. And how that adds up to me caring whether the mother suffers or not, I’m unclear. I’m contending that it is the child that is innocent, with their whole life ahead of them (potentially wrecked before they even emerge from the womb) who must have that protected infinitely more than an ideology, or again, someone’s concept of what sin they (IE: mother, father) will face. I hope that comes out a little less muddled this time. Apologies on making it about as clear as mud.
You didn’t answer my question.
How do you determine whether or not this fetus will have a happy life or not? There is a chance that a child could die at 10 years old in pain all of its life from some disease. We shouldn’t kill fetuses becuase they face a chance that their life will be miserable.
I’m of the camp that souls are non-existant so that isn’t an issue for me. If you believe that the fetus doesn’t have a ‘soul’ and is a lesser person than the mother then this issue becomes very easy. You kill this fetus becuase it would be better for the mother.
O.K. lets apply it this way. Hypothetical Mom is 9 months pregnant when she and the father are killed in a car accident. Should we allow the fetus to die or should we do what we can and save it? I guess the point that I am trying to make is that I don’t think we should treat baby any different whether its in the womb or has been born.
You’re saying that a child is innocent of the crime and that forcing him to live with this knowledge is punishing him right? If thats the case then my answer is that a life with hardship is a gift compared to no life at all.
I am not going into the debate that laws=morals (or should), I’m just pointing out an example where it is already. What I am refering to is a law that I know from my nautical days. If your vessel is in distress and you must leave it you are legally allowed to ‘tresspass’ for this situation but can’t cause anymore damage then needed (I could break down a gate to gain access to the property if needed, but couldn’t then continue to break down the fence). I feel a fetus has a legal right to use the womb which they have implanted themselves in. That’s all I’m saying.
Also for your kidney argument, it is not natural for your kidney to be removed, which childbirth is, and not only natural but needed for humans to continue on this planet, but you knew that already.
Ok then, what is a fetus to you?
Exactly my point, I have been too and would welcome it again, the word is now meaningless. When you hear it you have to ask for clarification.
look up feticide. Some nice AOL member has a list of some of the feticide laws here:
http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/feticide.htm
Some laws calling it murder. So the law is not on your side. Science, don’t know how you came up with that one 
Science does define the end of life w/ the stop of brain activity, is it wrong to make an assumption here on the begining?
Yes you may declare war and kill enemy invaders from space.
:rolleyes:
I think you are much more religious then you let on, if only in the anti-religious sense. You see religion in everything, even where there is none, and get upset with what you perceive. It would be an interesting passage, and by it’s inclusion one might assume that aborting human babies is OK as they don’t have this protection. Such items like alian issues I would leave up to the parents unless they pose a threat.
OK, what you are saying is that mercy killings are moral, Under certain circumstances it may be, but a child who can be adopted out doesn’t fall into this.
I have also said if the unborn baby has serious problems I would leave it up to the parents to kill it or not.
So I think we are in somewhat of agreement here.
Way to miss the point of the hypothetical. The problem is that we see two different things when we think about fetuses. You see a cute little bay-beeee!!! I see a parasite, one which wrecks lives and brings hardship. You don’t seem to think I do see that (I’ve got one cold, cold heart, it’s true), but trust me, I do. The point of the hypothetical was to remove the bay-beeee!!! from the equation.
And science is on my side in that it has not proved that non-viable fetuses are sentient. They have potential sentience, but they do not have intelligence equal to that of a fully grown human baby.
How about this hypothetical: We discover a way to make animals intelligent. They only need one shot of a certain chemical to become as intelligent as humans. Is it ethical to kill and eat non-intelligent animals, since they are all potentially sentient, if they were given the right chemical?
No I don’t see a cute little bay-beeee!!!, but a human life. And that human life has the same moral rights that every other human life does. The hypothetical removes the human part of that as well, and fails on that.
I think it’s safe to say that a fetus does not have the same level of intelligence as a baby, but for that mater a baby doesn’t have the same intelligence as a adult. Also I assume when you say non-viable, you mean outside the womb if removed today, as opposed to fetus’s that can’t survive even inside the womb.
Perhaps we should go into what does sentient mean and is it a requirement to being human.
Interesting, I was thinking of the creation of intelligent animals too, but in the context that they started pumping and burning their own oil, and asking you if we should morally stop them from doing so.
At this time I feel that Humans are morally allowed to kill and eat all (non-human) animals, just as tigers are ‘morally’ allowed to eat humans (though morality w/ animals is vastly different). This extends to the right to kill and eat intelligent animals.
This is not an entirely apt analogy it gives a yes/no question for something that in realitiy is a sliding scale. Babies don’t suddenly become sentient once they are born. In fact I would argue that they are less sentient than say a dog when they are born. My dog has the ability to communicate with me, he understands what I am saying, is happy to see me, wants to play and wants to investigate different sensations. A baby when its born wants to eat and be warm. It doesn’t care who gives them this nor does it want anything more than that.
In your analogy the non-intelligent animals are just like sperm and eggs no one feels that these need to be protected. Once you fuse them or inject the animal with the chemical you have created life that needs to be protected.
Belief that the arbitrary legal definition of “personhood” is the end-all-be-all of a moral and ethical issue seems every bit as religious. The difference is the object of worship.
Enjoy,
Steven
Diogenes,
I’ve been following your replies on this thread, and if I’m reading them correctly, your position is that a baby, up until birth, has no legal status and therefore is legally considered as a part of the (potential) mother’s body to do with as she wishes - just as she can choose to keep or remove a mole or wart, so too she could choose to keep or remove the fetus in her womb.
I understand that point of view, although I find it terribly troubling.
Animals, it would seem, have greater protections under the law (or at least in the good graces of society) than do human fetuses. A person who would willfully kill a puppy they own could find themselves in trouble with the law. Even if they didn’t find themselves in legal trouble, they certainly would find themselves ostracized by many in society. Killing a puppy for any but the most necessary of reasons seems to be a Very Bad Thing in our society. Not that I am saying that there aren’t acceptable reasons to put down dogs. Dogs that harm other people or animals quite possibly should be put down. Dogs that have only suffering ahead of them may be candidates for euthanasia. But perfectly healthy, normal puppies? Not really. People tend to frown on that sort of thing.
And yet, society has become quite accepting of destroying potential human life simply at the say-so of the “owner” for no apparent good reason. I’m not talking about cases where the life of the mother is at risk. I’m not even talking about cases of rape or incest. I’ll even toss aside cases of undue financial hardship. I’m talking about cases where the (potential) mother simply does not want the child for whatever reason. Why is it that we seem to afford greater legal or societal protection to animals than to potential humans?
Zev Steinhardt