I won't come up with a full exhaustive listing off the top of my head, suffice to say most legit reasons have already been mentioned in this thread.
It should not be, no? Utilitarianism and fundamentalism are exactly the same thing. The utilitarian tries to reach a rational answer to vexing moral questions and fundamentalist trot out old answers from men who invented religions. In both cases personal judgment was used to try to act according to the will of God as he manifests to different people. The essential, then, is to be real. We were created in the image of God and he who knows himself is either God or his living representative, or both, depending on how you want to look at it.
The problem is that God gets smarter as humanity evolves. The problems therefore arise because some are stuck in the past and almost nobody at all knows himself or herself.
I basically agree with this if I might put it somewhat differently.
I feel emotionally that the moment of conception creates a unique and human individual that becomes instantly constitutionally protected. I think it is murder of a human life to abort a fetus. I do not believe there is any escape from these emotional feelings.
I believe also that human beings are animals trapped in an existential dilemma beyond their personal control. By a freak of evolution we reproduce sexually. Our sexual nature has a number of additional accidental properties. We are driven to love sex as a method of insuring we reproduce. We do not have conscious control of our fertility. Only half of humanity is born with the ability to carry a baby.
This means that some women will become pregnant who do not wish to be. To apply rights to life to a fetus, therefore, makes a slave of the mother if that is against her wishes. To free ourselves of this dilemma we either blame the mother for her pregnancy on the pretext that there is some abstract responsibility or we kill the baby. Everybody wants to believe that one or the other is the only right. Everybody wants to decide this for everybody else. Emotionally it is wrong to kill a baby. Emotionally it is wrong to force a woman to pay the price of an accident of evolution. Rationally it strikes me that it is makes more sense to kill something that does not know it is alive and cannot therefore experience its own existential dilemma than to force a conscious being to be a prisoner to beliefs that I hold. I cannot see any justice in this matter, but it is more unjust, in my opinion to let others make their own decisions in the hopeless situation than for me to impose mine. In the first place, as a male I will never be in this situation. I can avoid this dilemma by not getting a woman pregnant that doesn't want to be. At this point I am out of the picture and have nothing really to say.
I agree with almost everything you say, except for the "I won't be in this situation". That will essentially mean you'll only have sex with someone who you wouldn't mind getting pregnant at that particular moment.
Utilitarianism is completely different than fundamentalism.
There are some cases where utilitarianism will lead to the "right" conclusion, and other cases where it will lead to the "wrong" conclusion. The same is true of moral imperatives - they will lead sometimes to "right and sometimes to "wrong". The key is to know when to use which in an ethical dilemma, but in the end, no rationally based moral system of thought can always lead to the "right" answer.
No religion or system of thought will always provide the "right" answer.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
QFT.
That is the bottom line. Personhood isn't even really relevant. No person -- born or unborn -- has the right to occupy the body of woman against her will, to forcefully extract nutrients from her bloodstream, and inject her with waste and imbalancing hormones. Such an invasion would be a clear violation of her right to protect her bodily integrity, and any waiver of that right must be explicit.
-Garth
I think we can say that yours won't and here hasn't. Utilitarianism and Fundamentalism are identical as I described. Your failure to comprehend the underlying fundamental identity does not mean it is not there. Thanks though. Nice try.
Hacp
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2005
- 13,923
- 2
- 81
Wow. Everyone is getty way to scientific about this. In my opinion, the fetus becomes a person after the first trimester. That is when it starts to develop human like characteristics.
As for the arguement you quoted, well it is flawed.
A woman is not forced to have a baby. She can always abstain, or have a very early term abortion. In your example, the woman is forced to be connected to the old man, if only for a temporary time.
So lets say that the woman decides to help the old man for a few months, but then backs down. That is fine. The man was going to die anyways. She gave him new hope. Now make that comparison with a baby. I know that we aren't supposed to bring abortion into this, but the response to the quote needs abortion to be brought. I support 1st trimester abortions, but nothing else unless it is for medical reasons. Lets say she created that baby, waited for four months knowing that she was going to have the baby, then backed out. That is not fine. The woman was not doing a good deed by helping save the life of a baby. Instead, she was playing God by creating something, then killing it blatantly. Do you understand the difference in helping extend a life, and basically creating and outright killing a life? I do. Please come up with another example.
It was a hypothetical, which you seemed to have missed. By outlawing abortion, we would force her to have a baby, since the woman is only consenting to have sex, not to have a baby. Consenting to sex != consenting to have a baby.
Thus, forcing her to have a baby is similar to forcing a woman to be connected to the old man.
Regardless of the creation or killing of life, the mother has rights over her own body and its resources, and does not have to give them to the baby. She can decide at any time to terminate the parasitic relationship, since she is not able to willingly enslave herself to the babies life.
I dislike these topics only because no matter the good intentions started they go bad it seems.
On the topic to define a human I think no matter what you choose to define it with most animals or other forums of illness can cancel it out as shown in a post above.
However on the issue of canceling out (aka the brain waves and heartbeat comments are great for this) A person who goes into cardic arrest is put through efforts to change that (aka CPR, etc) should that be unable to be changed they are dead and then I would question if they are a person (For if they were it would defeat this whole issue as a dead fetus could then be classified still as a person). But since the issue is canceling out then yes they would no longer be classified as a person (Maybe a dead person if you really want to get technical but I think rights is more the issue here and dead people really do not tend to stand up for themselves.... nor do anything else for that matter. Now familys may file lawsuits on their behalf but this is a whole different issue and I will leave it alone for now.).
On the Brainwaves, a person in a coma still has a functional body which is a key factor. With help they can be brought back (To some degree of possiblity). Now since they still have a heatbeat this makes it more interesting ot combine the two (Brainwaves and heartbeat). Either way the chance to be brought back translates into life and person hood I guess could run next to this and at some point a fetus develops one or both of these.
Now for where I personally stand.
Abortion is a choice of the mother but I do think there should be good reason:
aka Rape. In no way should a woman who was raped be expect to keep the child. That is evil and wrong to do to a woman. It could emotionally scar her for the rest of her life not to mention what happens when the child goes looking for that parent if the parent gives that child up? How do they explain they do not know the father, they were raped and that it hurt them to see that child and know it was from a person who violated and took away there lives.
Its too much to even think to ask a woman to go through, I would not even think twice about this issue. We all have rights and that includes not to be raped, if you are you should not be made to keep something you did not irresponsibly create (Its not like you were with someone or had a one night stand its Rape).
Now if you have sex and through the use or lack of use of protection become preg. Then thats your fault. You can weigh your options but then its hard to make that choice. If you can not support the child and it would be better off with someone else the adoption is the way to go. There are familys just PRAYING to be giving the chance to have a family. They will help with everything and take good care of that child and the mother.
The father leaving or not being interested should not be a factor for abortion.
I know there are other reasons but I am done for now, these are the main ones we see come up, those forced on someone and those of irresponsible behavior.
On the topic to define a human I think no matter what you choose to define it with most animals or other forums of illness can cancel it out as shown in a post above.
However on the issue of canceling out (aka the brain waves and heartbeat comments are great for this) A person who goes into cardic arrest is put through efforts to change that (aka CPR, etc) should that be unable to be changed they are dead and then I would question if they are a person (For if they were it would defeat this whole issue as a dead fetus could then be classified still as a person). But since the issue is canceling out then yes they would no longer be classified as a person (Maybe a dead person if you really want to get technical but I think rights is more the issue here and dead people really do not tend to stand up for themselves.... nor do anything else for that matter. Now familys may file lawsuits on their behalf but this is a whole different issue and I will leave it alone for now.).
On the Brainwaves, a person in a coma still has a functional body which is a key factor. With help they can be brought back (To some degree of possiblity). Now since they still have a heatbeat this makes it more interesting ot combine the two (Brainwaves and heartbeat). Either way the chance to be brought back translates into life and person hood I guess could run next to this and at some point a fetus develops one or both of these.
Now for where I personally stand.
Abortion is a choice of the mother but I do think there should be good reason:
aka Rape. In no way should a woman who was raped be expect to keep the child. That is evil and wrong to do to a woman. It could emotionally scar her for the rest of her life not to mention what happens when the child goes looking for that parent if the parent gives that child up? How do they explain they do not know the father, they were raped and that it hurt them to see that child and know it was from a person who violated and took away there lives.
Its too much to even think to ask a woman to go through, I would not even think twice about this issue. We all have rights and that includes not to be raped, if you are you should not be made to keep something you did not irresponsibly create (Its not like you were with someone or had a one night stand its Rape).
Now if you have sex and through the use or lack of use of protection become preg. Then thats your fault. You can weigh your options but then its hard to make that choice. If you can not support the child and it would be better off with someone else the adoption is the way to go. There are familys just PRAYING to be giving the chance to have a family. They will help with everything and take good care of that child and the mother.
The father leaving or not being interested should not be a factor for abortion.
I know there are other reasons but I am done for now, these are the main ones we see come up, those forced on someone and those of irresponsible behavior.
This is where I think logic clouds judgement. Being able to see the difference in a situation also means seeing more then just one issue. Not just when a fetus is a person but the life it will lead, how destructive it could to that fetus's life and the one growing that fetus.
We can not have compasion only for one side and not the other, we can not say they are all people and not remember the people put in those situations (Or wouldn't that not be denying them the rights they alread had for YEARS before this incident of rape, etc (I never said anything about mothers health or defects... I think defects is a fine line that i do not want ot play with right now but I would pref to see both lives saved if it was a mother health issue but chancing losing both lives would only make the world less one valuable person).
Again as pointed out this issue can not be black and white because there are so many factors and seeing this is the first step to truly helping the whole world and not just focusing on one thing and over looking the other problem until it becomes a huge issue of its own.
Personhood is an ambigious word with no inherit defintion - it doesn't really mean anything. With this aside, there is no real answer as to when a fetus becomes a person. (Abortion) There is no real answer as to when a person stops being a person (Terri Schavio - I find itt absolutley hiliarous how many abortions advocates don't defend Terri.). If you're still going to ask me when a fetus becomes a person, I'll tell you to go ask South American Indian Tribes. You aren't a person until you're five years old, you don't even get a name until you're five years old.
With this aside, I am enjoying the new members and good discussion.
You must never eat again. There are living things in and on your food. In a billion trimesters these little fetuses will travel to the stars to represent us earth among the galactic races long long after humanity has killed itself over the abortion question and others of its kind. And please don't walk on the ground. The next worm you step on may be the grandfather of the Einstein People. We never know which of the things we kill may have been the parent of beings whose greatness we can't even imagine. You would kill yourself if you had enough imagination.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
It is true and legally valid to say that she owes the fetus no duty. No action of hers can be described as negligent.
There is a sensible argument to be made that a woman who is, say, 6 months pregnant has had ample opportunity to exercise her right to terminate her pregnancy if that was indeed her wish. Failing to take action in that time can be argued to confer what are called "squatter's rights" unto the fetus. That is to say, given that the fetus will be "vacating the premises" in a reasonably foreseeable timeframe, and that the "owner" could have "evicted" the "tenant" at any time before, it may be more reasonable to allow the "tenant" to leave "voluntarily" in his own timeframe.
For reasons such as this, I do feel that restrictions on late 2nd-trimester and 3rd trimester abortions are reasonable, with the exception that they be permitted under doctors orders only for medical reasons.
-Garth
The Religious Right running this country even feel the pill is murder.
12-8-2005 Opponents who believe life begins at conception contend the pill is little different from an abortion because it blocks the fertilized egg from being implanted on the uterine wall.
The emergency contraception pill is a high dose of hormones that women can take up to five days after sex to prevent pregnancy. Opponents who believe life begins at conception contend the pill is little different from an abortion because it blocks the fertilized egg from being implanted on the uterine wall.
BOSTON - Gov. Mitt Romney abandoned plans Thursday to exempt Roman Catholic and other private hospitals from a new law requiring them to dispense emergency contraception to rape victims.
Romney had initially backed regulations proposed earlier this week by his public health commissioner, Paul Cote Jr., who said the new law conflicted with an older law barring the state from forcing private hospitals to dispense contraceptive devices or information.
=====================================================
I didn't know some States required rape victims to have the baby.
12-8-2005 Opponents who believe life begins at conception contend the pill is little different from an abortion because it blocks the fertilized egg from being implanted on the uterine wall.
The emergency contraception pill is a high dose of hormones that women can take up to five days after sex to prevent pregnancy. Opponents who believe life begins at conception contend the pill is little different from an abortion because it blocks the fertilized egg from being implanted on the uterine wall.
BOSTON - Gov. Mitt Romney abandoned plans Thursday to exempt Roman Catholic and other private hospitals from a new law requiring them to dispense emergency contraception to rape victims.
Romney had initially backed regulations proposed earlier this week by his public health commissioner, Paul Cote Jr., who said the new law conflicted with an older law barring the state from forcing private hospitals to dispense contraceptive devices or information.
=====================================================
I didn't know some States required rape victims to have the baby.
Just a little tidbit of info you can tell your girlfriends (if any) - 3 doses of regular (week 1-2) birth control pills taken at once, will do the same thing as "Plan B". It's just estrogen/progestin in high doses.
I'm not sure to whom you were responding. However, the subject is "reasons (keyword) why we believe a fetus is or is not a person."
So assuming you are trying to state that a fetus is not a person until they can survive on it's own and it is ok to abort a fetus, is it ok to abort someone who can no longer survive on their own?
There are two extreme viewpoints on when abortion is acceptable. Never and anytime. Extremists are dangerous.
There is a lot of gray area about when abortion should be acceptable. Ronald Reagan only fully embraced two instances.
1. Rape
2. To save the Mother's life.
I would add a REALLY gray area which is for when the child has almost no chance of leading anything close to a normal life. Yes, that can mean many things to many people. Trying to write any law to cover such cases would be nearly impossible.
He wants to be the one to judge who lives and dies, don't you understand. Let him be, he'll make for a fine McDonalds manager.
back to the original question.....
Pull this clump of cells out of a woman's body 1 month after conception...and what do you have? Not much.
I guess to me that's why it's not a person.
Keep god out of everything and it's all quite simple.
Pull this clump of cells out of a woman's body 1 month after conception...and what do you have? Not much.
I guess to me that's why it's not a person.
Keep god out of everything and it's all quite simple.
Ryan
Lifer
- Oct 31, 2000
- 27,519
- 2
- 81
personally - I feel a fetus is not a person because to be a person, I believe some kind of interaction and standing is necessary within a community of people. A fetus plays no role in society, so it is not a person.
Now I know some people say that the fetus interacts with the mother, but do we know if these are reactionary interactions, or random due to the growth of the fetus? I feel that - until it has a role in society, it's not a person.
Now I know some people say that the fetus interacts with the mother, but do we know if these are reactionary interactions, or random due to the growth of the fetus? I feel that - until it has a role in society, it's not a person.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter