It’s more a defending freedom issue for me, personally.
No, it’s “meaningless” because defining it that way has only one purpose: to deny women abortions. We certainly don’t equate heart function and personhood elsewhere. Of course, that’s standard; in order to justify denying women abortions, the anti-abortionists come up with twisted definitions of “life” and “person” that aren’t used elsewhere, because any rational, fact based definition undercuts their position.
72 of one, half a gross of another. The point is that this argument only makes sense if one assumes that this is indeed a legitimate freedom that people are entitled to.
Saying “We can’t use the heartbeat as a demarcation line! The heart beats too early in the pregnancy!” amounts to arguing backwards. This approach presupposes that abortion MUST be justified at a certain age, and then argues backwards to find justifications for that stance.
Actually, when somebody says “the cutoff should be after the fetus has been around six weeks and for two trimesters”, the six weeks mark is meaningless.
Though seriously - what’s so important about a heartbeat anyway? I mean, aside from the fact it starts quite early and could thus be used to prevent elective abortions - aside from that useful fact, what’s so special about it? Sure without a heartbeat you die pretty quickly, but without respiration you’re dead too - should we wait until the fetus is breathing air before preventing abortion? Or what about the liver? You need that to live too, for any length of time. Why no love for the liver?
The heartbeat is nifty because you can see it with comparative ease. That’s pretty much it. It’s something to coo over, to show how the thing is a living chunk of flesh rather than a stillborn corpse or a misplaced toaster oven. But the thing about the abortion debate is that we already know the flesh-chunk is alive, thanks. It and my appendix have that in common - but that doesn’t mean we can’t remove my appendix.
If you’re going to refer to aspects of biological development to distinguish between persons and non-persons, then cognitive function and brainwaves are the only meaningful measure to refer to. The heart is nothing. Those cute little toesies? Insignificant. Cognitive function is the only relevent biological measure for this discussion.
Of course, lots of people aren’t interested in biological measures at all, which is another matter. But in that case, it’d disingenous to pretend the heart matters when you’re actually interested in the soul you imagine arrives at eight weeks or conception or whenever.
Funny, I tend to take freedom as a default, and the burden is on the state to prove the restriction is necessary. It’s not up to the people to prove entitlement, it’s up to the state to prove necessity.
Conversely though, there is crucial neural development happenening right to the end.
In fact, even at birth, most of the brain is unmyelinated and it is questionable what level of consciousness a newborn baby could experience.
I’m not disagreeing with anyone, just throwing in some tidbids.
I think Cosmic Relief was responding to a hypothetical about abandoning babies.
(S)he wasn’t saying that anyone should have to jump through hoops to have an abortion*, pretty much the opposite, I think.
- Just realised on preview: maybe that’s a way to define the cutoff…If you can’t jump through hoops you’re too late into preganancy
I, too, fail to see any relevance whatsoever to a beating heart. You can have personhood without a heartbeat (as, for example, with some modern artificial hearts that use a continual pump instead of pulses), and you can have a heartbeat without personhood (as, for example, a brain-dead patient). At most, it’d be a proxy for other, less easily-measured but more relevant, milestones of development.
Well, to argue Devil’s advocate, without starting with the assumption that a fetus is not a person guaranteed rights you don’t know which side “freedom” falls on. It still falls foul of JThunder’s general point. You make take freedom as a default, but your application of it here relies on prior arguments. After all, it’s not up to the fetus to prove entitlement, it’s up to the state to prove necessity.
It’s not an "assumption; it’s a fact. A fetus is not even remotely a person, especially early on when abortions virtually always happen.
All the more reason not to deprive a human being of its life.
“But it’s not a human being” one might object. Or “But this particular kind of being doesn’t merit protection.” Fella, that’s exactly why this is under great debates – because a significant number of people do believe that the rights of the unborn deserve protection.
No, because quite a few people want to hurt women, and are willing to use any excuse they can make up to do it. Including manufacturing ridiculous, indefensible definitions of “person” that have no other purpose and make no sense.
I don’t understand this well enough to respond to it.
That’s a convenient forgetfulness of the other human being in the equation. Further, the I figure the onus is on the state to prove that aborted pregnancies are sufficiently damaging to society that the practice must be stopped. It’s unclear to me that the benefit outweighs the costs.
One might. I wouldn’t. Call it a human being if you like with no objection from me.
Thought I would show this link of recent news. I wouldn’t want to face this decision, but if I did I would do exactly as the nun did.
It has always surprised me that abortion is such a big issue with Catholics. They believe in life after death, so how can anyone get killed if they continue to live.
There is the spiritual side of the issue much different than the religious.
I am only here typing this because my Mother didn’t abort me. I wonder how many on SD would not be here if we had free abortions in the 50’s and 60’s?
The thing that makes me know it is wrong is because every life is sacred. So now we have millions of people who were never allowed to be born. Some may have invented the cure for cancer or made a huge contribution to the world but they never got the chance. Our world today might be completely different if all those abortions never occurred but we will never know…
The greatest joy in my life is my son. 26 years ago my Mom wanted to give me 500 dollars for an abortion because it was unplanned. I said, No, Thank God because he is such a great person. So many great people the world will never know.
I’m not against abortion but I do think it is wrong.
As long as we’re going to speculate about major contributions, we might as well assume that every aborted child would have grown up to be a criminal or a serial killer. After all, they would demonstrably be born to mothers who don’t want them, possibly due to lacking the means to care for them effectively. While such an upbringing does not doom you to an unfortunate outcome, it’s not exactly helpful either. So maybe all those ‘great people’ the world will never know might have actually been terrible, and the world is better off without them.
Personally I see little value in speculating wildly about ‘might have beens’. If we allowed marriage at the age of eleven and requred that all nonpregnant women (and, um older children) constantly had sex until they got pregnant or hit menopause, then there would be lots more people around than there currently is. Oh, woe that we don’t let 11 year olds marry! Oh woe that we allow women to ever be non-pregnant! So many people that might have been that instead we’ll never see.
Well that is easy to say because we were not aborted and have a life to type our thoughts out. You or I may have been a “might have been” but for myself I’m glad for my life. I’m sure you are too.
I guess it is not important unless you are the “Life that will never be”? I may look at it differently because my son would not have been born if I listened to my Mother. My son is awesome and is not a serial killer. He wouldn’t hurt a fly. He’s responsible, kind, owns his own home, works hard and lives a good life.
I am not taking sides but just wanted to add my thoughts to this thread. I don’t see abortion laws ever being repealed.
Ok, That being said. I have another thought I struggle with around abortion. If abortion is legal do you ever think Euthanasia will become legal? We can decide to terminate a life at conception so why not at any point if we decide to end our life? I know it’s legal in some parts of Europe. We euthanize death row inmates so why not let people decide if they want to end their lives? It would be a big cost savings. Any thoughts?
How many people would have ended up homeless, or raised by mothers who hated them because they were brought into the world solely as a weapon against them? And how many people would have lived longer if Hitler and Stalin had been aborted?
Why not? You have no more right to keep me alive in agony than you do to reduce women to breeding animals.
If I had been aborted, I would not regret that it happened. (Think about it.) And a bit more seriously, I am not at all certain that oblivion is worse than life - attempting to compare the situations from the perspective of the person experiencing it (or not experiencing it) is problematic nearly to the point of being nonsensical. With this in mind, I do not fear the inevitable future state of me being dead - who says not existing is a bad thing?
(I do fear dying, though - I hear most ways of doing it hurt a lot. And I don’t want to make those that survive me unhappy, so at the least I need to outlive my parents, and if possible die in a way that won’t traumatize my friends and siblings. But aside from all that, being dead is no big deal.)
Sounds like you dodged a bullet.
[gigantic hijack]
Presuming that you’re talking about self-instigated euthanasia, which appears to be the case, there are actually fewer philosophical obstacles to instigating it, because it lacks the ‘unwilling victim’ angle. (Actually so does abortion, but not everyone agrees with me about that.) Self-instigated euthanasia is basically just a less-messy, doctor-assisted suicide, after all. However despite it lacking some of the tangled moral debate abortion has, I don’t think that legal self-instigated euthanasia will ever get off the ground due to a lack of support. There are millions of people who aggressively desire legal abortions. People who want their doctor to kill them are a bit less common, and may not even be mobile enough to vote easily anyway. Also they might find it hard to find a willing doctor in their area - a doctor is more likely to think that the first trimester fetus isn’t a person, than that that the person they’re talking to isn’t a person, and may feel that any person asking for it isn’t in their right mind and thus isn’t competent to make the request anyway.
Euthanasia of an unwilling victim, such as your insensible brain dead mother, has similar dodgy quandries to abortion, but I think is more likely to be legalized than self-instigated euthanasia beucase we have a lot more sympathy with the person paying hospital bills to keep a vegetable breathing than we do for a suicidal person. Offing old comatose people also doesn’t inspire the specious “but they might have cured world peace” argument since the victim usually has little life ahead of them anyway.
[/gigantic hijack]
I missed the edit - did your son invent the cure for cancer or make a huge contribution to the world?
He does. My son has a rare disorder where he can’t lie. He has gotten into trouble or got maximum penalties because he can’t lie. Everybody loves him because he is so honest, to a fault. He is 26 and it is still early but I really feel he will contribute something great in some way to the world. I didn’t dodge a bullet, I was given great gift in him. He is a much better person then I am. Not that I’m anything special but he is. Sometimes as parents we just get lucky.
Hijack-I agree Self Instigated Euthanasia is probably not something we are going to see legalized soon. I have seen it performed under the guise of Hospice and it really shook me to see it being done. They give them the pink juice and it’s good night Irene. My Mom who is a nurse told me it’s the kindest way and all that flap. A friend of mine recently flew to Holland to see her Dad off. He had it done because of advanced cancer.