Yes, I did go off focus a bit here. But I still feel morally that that womb is a needed environment for this human to survive and as such should not be taken from it.
You call me inconsistant? Anyway again this is off focus.
The difference is that we were all fetuses at some point and have had that exact right, so no there is no difference, it’s how humans develop. Children have different rights as adults, men have different rights as women. Only legally do we try to equalize some of the rights.
It goes beyond this, taking substances intentionally to kill our own healthy offspring (when we are not put into danger) is not a moral decision.
The idea is not to prove wrong, but to gain clarification.
Ok so your answer is basically you don’t know. You seem to want to define it within the limits of viability if removed from the womb, to after the cord is cut. While my limits are conception to brainwave activity.
I think I know your answer to this one as well, but if instead of abortion, if it was possible (hey I had to deal with future space aliens popping out of my stomach, you can deal w/ this one) to transplant a fetus w/ the same risk and trouble as aborting it, would you still like to see the mother be able to make the decision to kill the fetus if transplantation was possible?
If transplantation technology was possible, would you be down at the hospital every nine months to carry another unwanted child? (Or your wife/mother/girlfriend/whatever, if you’re male.)
Yes, and I feel a lot of ‘prochoice’ people feel the way you do but don’t care to say it in this way. So you do recognize that there is more then one item here, not just a pregnant woman, but a woman and a fetus.
You are giving this lump of cells very human like characteristics, like being given permission, and being evicted, granted mercy, survival and death. Perhaps that’s just for my benifit.
Remember that we are talking about morals, some may lead moral lives, some may not, again we do have free will to break moral law.
Well I did, but will say it again. This goes beyond the kidney at gunpoint arugment as we all came from a womb (well most of us, sometimes I wonder… well never mind) and as such needed that womb. I find it hypocritical for us as adults (or children) to turn around to others who just haven’t developed as far and say sorry pal, your SOL.
I said early on that it is morally wrong to abort if adoption is available, the same will apply to this, you need someone wanting to get the transplant and raise the child.
I have not given enough though to the situation when there are no more people willing to adopt.
No, it’s not for your benefit. I’ve never called it a ‘lump of cells’.
Just to check we’re on the same page, do you agree that people are able to choose whether to be moral or not? Should they be able to choose to be immoral? Should laws be changed so that is it more difficult to be immoral?
See, I don’t find it hypocritical, I find it unrelated. Yes, my mother chose to rent out her womb (and the following 18 years of her life). So did yours. But we all make different choices than our parents did, because we are different people, with different thoughts, so what my mother did has no bearing on what I should do. If she chose to rent out her womb, but not raise me, I would be a different person with different thoughts today. If she decided not to rent out her womb to me, I would not be here typing away, and she would’ve had a much different life, with very different thoughts/experiences. So I guess the fact that I was once X, due to other people’s choices, does not mean I have to make the same choices they did when I come across another X. I may make better choices, I may make worse choices, depending on the onlookers perspective.
The OP is about morality, not legality, not religion. I am just staying w/i the bounds of the OP, and saying it is immoral to abort. I am also acknowledging that people have free will and can act immoral. I don’t want to go into the states roll. (This is why I wanted to drop the kidney offshoot).
Did you get a receipt? It’s not a fininatial transaction.
Alrighty then. Thanks, now I understand where you’re coming from.
You think it’s immoral, but acknowledge that people can act immorally.
I’m sure you also acknowledge that not everybody agrees with your view on morals?
It seems that we agree on most things (i.e, what the fetus is, etc) and just disagree on the final morality or immorality of abortion.
Where did this come from? No, of course I didn’t get a receipt. I know it isn’t a financial transaction. Carrying a child to term is a huge thing. A major, life changing experience, and if you keep the child and raise it, it completely alters your life in almost every way. I fully realise it’s a huge deal, not just an exchange of parts. If it was as simple as a financial transaction, I might have done it a few times already, for others.
Agreed, well I think that all people know that acting immorally is possible for humans, but I think what you are saying is what I consider moral others might consider immoral or amoral.
Also I did stray from the OP myself, as it is easy to do here, by adding things like law.
It just seemed like you were devaulating the process.
Bingo. To me, abortion is amoral. To you it’s immoral. As long as you don’t hold me at gunpoint to prevent me aborting (if I was to fall pregnant), you and I have no problems, just a difference of opinion.
Sorry if that’s the impression I gave. I did not mean to. I am very aware of how big a deal being pregnant is, and how much bigger a deal being a parent is.
Thanks for the chance to see another persons perspective.
You keep throwing out “It’s not a human,” and “It’s not a person,” yet you offer nothing to back it up.
Your post mentions 8 and 12 weeks.
Again, from Diary of an Unborn Baby
and
Scientific proof that an unborn child has all a brain, a nervous system, and all major organs. If that isn’t a human being to you, then please tell me scientifically why not. If it’s because it’s not as developed as us, then would you say that a severely mentally retarded person isn’t a human?
You claim it can’t feel pain. As stated above, by week 12 it most certainly feel pain, and it’s not difficult to figure out, that this doesn’t suddenly happen all at once, so it’s safe to say that it can feel pain before that, although to a lesser degree the further back in time you go.
My belief that an unborn child is a human life isn’t based on faith or religion, it’s based on the scientific facts I’ve laid out before you and the other pro-choicers. I still have yet to hear from you, or any one else, a solid foundation behind the claims of “It’s not a human.”
You’ve already made that point. What I’m asking, for the third time now, is when does somebody become a person?
You have consistantly faild to answer that. Pointing out that frog isn’t a person does not prove that an unborn child also isn’t a person. It also doesn’t answer the question.
I’ve given my beliefs, I’ve given what I use to back them up. I hope that someone on the pro-choice side can do the same.
Don’t know if this will help or answer what you’re looking for, but my definition is when that baby transforms to viable outside the womb and sentient. Up until then, in my view, although they’re infinitely more than this crude term implies, they’re basically parasitic. I don’t really feel that way, but that’s the best thing I can think of to use to describe it and why I, personally, think it doesn’t actually constitute a human in the classical sense lest it passes the above point.
