Discussion in 'Politics, Philosophy, and Religion' started by I REALLY HATE PUMPKINS!, Oct 26, 2016.
It's certainly alive, that's how it works. It's growing.
It is certainly not alive. It is a shell that is unable to live.
Living things grow. It's alive, you just don't want to call it a person. And it isn't unable to live until it is killed.
It is only alive in the same sense that a sperm cell is alive. At 20 weeks, the fetus becomes more than that. It, technically, becomes a baby at that stage.
That's an unequal comparison. Sperm itself won't become a person.
No, but sperm on its own is alive, as every cell in our body is alive. A fetus is but one of those cells, until week 20.
We're not just talking about life in general. Saying sperm on its own is alive is like saying a tree is alive. It's a fact but an irrelevant one. We're talking about the life of a human.
That is ironically the point I am making. The fetus' life prior to week 20 is comparable to the sperm or tree.
So in 140 days the person (who is now allowed to be referred to as such, what an honor) is more important than a 139 day old person? That's a bit asinine. Also, your logic is severely flawed because there is zero chance that a sperm can become a "person" but this "fetus" can and will, barring interference or natural death. Why would you say it's comparable to a tree?
Week 20 is only an approximation. It is about the point when the fetus is capable of potentially living outside of the mother. Scientifically speaking, it is not "potential human life" until this point. Similar to a sperm cell, or blood cells, or any other cell in our body, the young fetus/embryo cannot live outside of its host. So why would we give it rights as if it were the same as a human being? It is not.
So we only approximate life? Too bad for the suckers who fall through the cracks in our "approximation," huh? Pretty flawed.
So why isn't it potential human life until that point? Does it have the potential to become an alligator or a rock or something until then? We know it's invariably growing into a human being.
If we're focusing on the "fetus'" dependence, I again point to those with medical conditions which make them dependent on machines. Just saying "well theyre dependent on a person, not a machine" isn't an important distinction and I'd like to know why it is, if you think so.
Well what do you want? An approximation of when a fetus becomes a viable human life, or an exact cut-off date? I am sure abortions that come close to that point are examined closely by the practicioner, whom studied for this kind of thing.
It's not that the fetus is dependent prior, it is that it is not consious, and has no features of a living being. It is as I said before, a simple cell. It is incapable of being more than that before the cutoff.
What do I want? Well, if we're talking about life and death I think we need to do everything we can to ensure there's justice for these people. The least we can do is start with being sure.
Besides, that's only assuming we have the right to decide who is truly a person and who isn't, and I don't think we do. My only point is that if we do play God we should do so competently.
And if we're now talking about a person being conscious or not, then again, there are people who aren't and I'd surely go to jail for murder I pulled their plug. And they do have features of a living being, let me cite the definition (people hate this for some reason but never give one) of life:
It has life and the features of life, meets the criteria.
I think you've actually touched on something important here.
If you went up to an unconscious stranger on life support and pulled their plug, yes, you'd absolutely be arrested for murder or some other charge. And I sincerely hope that anyone who aborts someone's child without their consent would as well.
What's tricky here is that the family of a seemingly permanently unconscious person on life support has a difficult decision to make. Do they pull the plug or not? Is it right to or not? This is considered a personal choice for the family based on their own beliefs, values, situation, etc. No one can say definitively if it's right or wrong. It's a personal decision for the family and it's deeply important to them, so we let them make it. The comatose person is not the one with autonomy here because they are not conscious.
In my mind, abortion should be treated the same way. It's not that I think all babies should be aborted, but when someone does get an abortion, it's a very personal choice and issue that impacts them more than the fetus (which isn't aware or conscious), so I don't feel right intervening on that.
What if the seemingly permanently unconscious person has nobody in his life, and no written will, or anything? Should we kill him because he's a burden? I don't think so. And what if they do have a will, should we go against it? We can presume most babies will want to live, certainly can't presume otherwise. And what if we're talking about a person who is in a coma and there's a chance they could come out of it? Should we even have the option to kill him on the table? The baby has a higher chance of being born alive than he does of coming out of a coma so I don't know why we even consider it. The person in a coma, by the way, has something wrong with them and the baby is just trying to live. Also, an old person is near the end of their natural life while we're cutting off a person who is just trying to start.
I understand your points, but life shouldn't be tread on. It's one thing if there's a "good" reason (health, incest, rape, etc) but can't we at least agree that "hm no im not ready for what i willingly created" isn't acceptable? Or at least see the concerns there?
I think about it next to the death penalty; if we're not sure the criminal is guilty, how can we kill him for something he may not have done? I don't think we can. So now how can we kill an innocent baby clinging to life that did nothing wrong if we can't even kill a guy who may deserve it, who we're 99% sure does? It's kind of crazy to me. The only way around it is if the baby isn't considered a person, but who are we to decide? What gall.
I appreciate your position, though, and you obviously have everyone's best intentions at heart.
^ I want to preface this by saying that I really do understand and appreciate where you're coming from. And honestly, I believe that every single person who considers and undergoes the abortion process does as well. Facilities that perform abortions also have therapy and counseling sessions before the procedure to make sure that this decision is made as an educated decision bearing in mind possible alternatives as well as the moral implications. I don't believe that anyone takes abortion lightly.
However, I simply feel that because having a child has such an enormous (possibly devastating, in certain circumstances) impact on the entire life of the parent, if they - after seriously considering their choices - decide they are not prepared to have a child, I believe it is their personal choice to terminate the pregnancy. So long as it is in early term, so the unconscious fetus feels no pain; or if it's due to unfortunate complications or extreme circumstances in the late term. Because although a fetus undeniably has the potential to become a human life, I do place the right to make a decision so strongly impacting the lives of adult humans in their own hands, and I trust them to take this decision personally and seriously with the counseling and education that reproductive health centers provide. I simply don't think it's something we can universally decide for other people when pregnancies are so life changing, and we don't always know the impact having a child might have on someone, or their relationship with said child. It's better if every child is wanted.
There are some parents who consider abortion and ultimately decide to go through with the pregnancy. When the child comes, they have worked through their doubts and decided they want to raise this life. That to me is much healthier than if a parent who absolutely does not want a child is forced to have one... that can't be positive for either the parent *or* the child. In that situation, I believe it would be healthier for that person, if they choose, to be able to terminate their pregnancy.
Note: I'm going to share my thoughts here eventually, though it'll probably be after my work week is over, since I find it difficult to organize my thoughts on complex political issues in between twelve hour shifts.
[[Thread title changed]]
It is quite the opposite. The issue you wish to discuss is a semantic nonsense. We cannot curb abortion in a meaningful way without addressing the factors contributing to it. You lack a way forward. Moral labels are and remain a personal preference, the portion you quoted depends equally on the text anticedent of it. I am only concerned with the legality, I only believe in 'right' and 'wrong' as a sense of fairness and social wellness. On these terms, it is not a matter to me whether or not you consider it wrong, it is a matter for me whether or not the potential parents require it and it does not inhibit the rights of others already participating in the state.
The only meaningful determination to make, in my opinion, is how can you curb abortion if you are concerned by it, and how can you do so without violating the rights of others, if morals are not to be coded and are a personal preference? I say this knowing that you cannot convince me otherwise, it is not a matter for discussion, and so I am only concerned with a fair and successful method by which you can still pursue your own preferences. That solution is in the factors I had addressed - viability of health and life to those in the position to make the decision, and social and financial security.
Life ends, period. We should not argue as though it does not. It is your moral preference, and you are projecting your preference for life on an unformed consciousness. We can have no more qualms about sustaining the 'life' of a few growing cells as we can about sustaining the life of a disembodied kidney, should we so choose.
I do not like abortion. There are many factors, the Bible included, that have convinced me that life begins at, or very very near to conception (I.e. When the fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall). Yes, I'd go so far as to call it a sin.
Legislating against abortion will simply change (sort of) the outward behavior. Laws will never change the hearts of individuals. If abortion were made more difficult or somehow outlawed, that would not eliminate the root problems that are behind the issue: sin, namely (that is, everyone's); unwanted pregnancies; the inevitability of birth defects and pregnancy complications; and incredibly difficult choices. Legislation against abortion will not cause this tremendous drop in abortion numbers and change the way people see it. Laws against abortion will only serve to make people seek out other means to the same end that are unsafe, unregulated, and scary.
I agree with AI on this point. If pro-lifers want to lower abortions, there needs to be more attention given to sex education, the extremely complicated adoption process, welfare and personal care for single mothers, and supporting those in their community or midst who are going through the struggles. If pro-lifers want to lower abortions, I strongly believe they need to take care of the problems in their own churches, communities, schools, and backyards so that they positively affect people's attitudes rather than just unlovingly forcing an unwanted and resented behavior upon the people they disagree with.
CL is right, too. No one takes abortion lightly, and if they do, they quickly discover after the fact that they actually didn't (post-abortion depression is extremely common, so much so that clinics will automatically provide counseling for it). I said earlier that I think it's a sin, but keep in mind that literally everyone sins. We live in a world surrounded by it. If pro-life people try to shame and alienate those who have had abortions, they do absolutely nothing to help their cause. They push away. They're only concerned with an outward behavior and not the heart. That's wrong. The alternative option is to show unconditional love and support for those who have had to make such a difficult decision. Show them Christ's forgiveness that has already been won for them. Convince them with the Gospel that they don't have to feel guilty for their past, but that they can move forward with God. Jesus' victory is bigger than the abortion or any other sin; but guilt-tripping people about something you dig your heels in about is never going to change the heart and never going to lead to Jesus.
That got rantier and more biblical than I had originally intended.
TLDR: I don't support abortion, but I don't feel I'm in a position to change anything about the situation legally and that my efforts are much better spent on changing the situation spiritually in my limited sphere of influence by sharing the Gospel of Christ and his forgiveness.