Didn't vote because the word "life" is not a proper term for discussing abortion. "Human being" is a term much more appropriate. Bacteria are alive and we universally consider killing those that have a negative effect on us as a good thing. The vast majority of our food comes from killing something that is alive.
That said, since I do not believe in any gods, I do not see any miracles or other magical events involved in the process.
Science has indeed evolved to the point of being able to keep less and less developed fetuses alive outside of the womb. Therfore I am comforable with allowing elective abortion up to the point where the mother could give birth to a baby that she herself could keep alive. I also believe that a woman should have the option at any time to have an abortion to save her own life.
That said, since I do not believe in any gods, I do not see any miracles or other magical events involved in the process.
Science has indeed evolved to the point of being able to keep less and less developed fetuses alive outside of the womb. Therfore I am comforable with allowing elective abortion up to the point where the mother could give birth to a baby that she herself could keep alive. I also believe that a woman should have the option at any time to have an abortion to save her own life.
:beer:
At conception, the zygote is a distinct life - it has different DNA and is a separate entity from the mother. That is the distinction.
Utilitarian calculations cannot allow the overthrow of the cardinal rights, regardless of the outcome. These rights are 'inalienable' and no laws may be made infringing them. The purpose of government is actually to protect these rights from such laws. It's in the Declaration of Independence.
At conception, the zygote is a distinct life - it has different DNA and is a separate entity from the mother. That is the distinction.[/quote] [/quote]
I understand the distinction. But I don't think that's what Chess9 was getting at. I think he was getting at viability. I'll let him answer that.
Says who? Why?
Says who? Why?
Even if I accepted that the declaration of independence carried your meaning of its vague terms, the constitution says black people are worth less than one whole white person in votes. So what?
Says the Declaration of Independence. Here it is:
The Constitution was amended to fix that. If you want to deprive one of the cardinal rights to someone, then you'd better get an amendment started, because that's what is required (or supposed to be required).
You didn't answer any of my questions. Frankly I'm not surprised. All you can say is basically, "because what I think should be is."
Your reasons are all based on religion which is based on faith, not reason, so don't try and bother communicating your beliefs which again are not based on reason.
EDIT: You may be responding right now but I guess you did answer my question (in a sense). But you're not 'really' answering. You're relying on what the law actually is. Well take a look at roe v. wade and I'll could tell you abortion is right because it's the law. That's the same sort of lame argument you're making.
Infohawk:
I'm not a costs/benefits person when ethical issues are involved. It's much more beneficial to me to keep going after I run over a cyclist, but it poses serious ethical problems, just for starters. Perhaps you should re-think that approach. Or, you might want to restate it to make it more palatable.
An egg (which is what I assume you meant, not an ovary) or a sperm isn't a zygote, and a zygote is LIFE, by my definition. We will probably be able to clone human beings from a few cells within the next 10 years but that is an entirely different ethical quagmire than this one. Anyway, is someone proposing the killing of ovaries (eggs)? Is there a large movement to prevent the killing of eggs?
I know you guys are regularly "killing" your sperm, but that's probably a good thing.
We have enough difficult problems already without manufacturing false dichotomies.
-Robert
-
I'm not a costs/benefits person when ethical issues are involved. It's much more beneficial to me to keep going after I run over a cyclist, but it poses serious ethical problems, just for starters. Perhaps you should re-think that approach. Or, you might want to restate it to make it more palatable.
An egg (which is what I assume you meant, not an ovary) or a sperm isn't a zygote, and a zygote is LIFE, by my definition. We will probably be able to clone human beings from a few cells within the next 10 years but that is an entirely different ethical quagmire than this one. Anyway, is someone proposing the killing of ovaries (eggs)? Is there a large movement to prevent the killing of eggs?
I know you guys are regularly "killing" your sperm, but that's probably a good thing. We have enough difficult problems already without manufacturing false dichotomies.
-Robert
-
Cost / benefits is a great approach and is the basis of some advanced ethical philosophies. Let me try and make it more palatable. First of all I'm not saying we're only considering personal interests. We're considering the interests of society AND the two individuals involved. The cyclist situation woud still be unethical in my view (obviously) because of the cost to society and to the cyclist drastically outweigh the costs to the driver. (And for the record I'm a rules-based utilitarian so don't attack me with the standard anti-utilitarian arguments).
But don't you think it's life BECAUSE it's viable at that point?
I don't think it's that different. It's part of the same problem of how we manage life. You have to be able to cover those situations with your present system.
That's an appeal to popularity. You know that something isn't right simply based on whether people are advocating it or not.Anyway, is someone proposing the killing of ovaries (eggs)? Is there a large movement to prevent the killing of eggs?
many people would take exception to that since that definition is far too strict. the term "life" is not a good word to use because, by definition, anything with dna that eats and reproduces is life. a bacteria is life. a colon cell is life. a better term to use is "human life." that, at least, brings us down to one species. now the question concerns the definition of "human life." now if you say "human life" begins at conception, then there will be several problems. first, at least 40% and up to 80% of all conceptions end in terminations. however, no one really knows about them because they get flushed down in regular menstrual flow. second, there is an entity called a hydatiform mole, which is basically a fetus turned into a tumor. if we find these, we want to get rid of it since (borrowing from other definitions) although it is "human life", it acts like a tumor. third, there is the problem of ectopic pregnancies whereby the fetus attaches to an extra-uterine site. the issue with this is that the risk of rupture and maternal hemorrhage is great such termination of pregnancy is warranted.
now the problem is that no one seems to be up in arms concerning the status of the zygote/fetus the above. in the first example, although most the zygotes are genetically unviable, there are still many that are genetically viable. they just didn't not implant and it is conceivable that capturing them and reimplanting will result in a viable pregnancy.
in the second example, the fetus continues to grow even though, by our definition, it is also genetically unviable. however, since we defined "human life" to occur at conception, we are again, destroying human life.
in the third example, we are making a value judgment that the mother is more important than the fetus and the fetus is destroyed. which raises the question (no it does not beg the question), why are we valuing the mother more than the fetus?
as for babies being born at around 20 weeks gesetation, 23-24 weeks is currently the absolute maximum viability limit. and survival isn't that great. mortality is definitely very high. if the infant survives, morbidity is very high.
you need another option if you phrase your question so simply: before conception
or you could get more complicated and make it something like "life is ongoing" or "each new part of life is created when a cell divides"
But, by definition, it is human life. It has human DNA, human parents. Further, people die of natural causes after they're born. They also die of disease. So many conceptions end this way because the infant's immune system is much weaker than the average person's. There exists a morally relevant difference between spontaneous abortion (one in which the mother's body naturally rejects a pregnancy) and a procured abortion, since one is natural and the other is a surgical procedure. IIRC, the cause of spontaneous abortion is usually the prior death of the embryo. The procured abortion is a surgical dismemberment of the embryo/fetus. I believe the natural argument applies to the rest of your post as well.
I hate abortion discussions. Neither side is going to concede. But here's my take. To me, it's obvious that life begins at conception. And it's not based on religious reasons. But when you look at pictures like these I think it's hard to deny that fetus is inanimate. Is a tadpole not alive until it becomes a frog?
In my opinion, I think people have convinced themselves (or been convinced by others) that life does not start until birth, because it supports their position on abortion. People view those who are opposed to abortion as being religious whackos who want to force their Christian beliefs on others. It's not that at all. I just don't like murder. I don't believe in murdering children, adults, disabled people, nursing home residents, babies, or fetuses. It feels odd to be criticized for being opposed to murder.
Think of this scenario. A woman has a premature baby at 6 months. We all agree that after the premature baby is born, at 6 months, it is alive. And to kill it at that point would be murder. Another woman has a normal pregnancy, but has an abortion at 6 months. Both babies are in the same stage of development, but one is murder, and one is legal. Why?
People argue, "It's the woman's body, and the woman's choice. Male politicians should not be telling women what they can and can't do with their body." But it's not just their body. What about the baby's body? If the government was telling women they can't get plastic surgery, I would agree. It's her body, she can do whatever she wants with it. But the baby has a body too. Who's fighting for its rights?
In my opinion, I think people have convinced themselves (or been convinced by others) that life does not start until birth, because it supports their position on abortion. People view those who are opposed to abortion as being religious whackos who want to force their Christian beliefs on others. It's not that at all. I just don't like murder. I don't believe in murdering children, adults, disabled people, nursing home residents, babies, or fetuses. It feels odd to be criticized for being opposed to murder.
Think of this scenario. A woman has a premature baby at 6 months. We all agree that after the premature baby is born, at 6 months, it is alive. And to kill it at that point would be murder. Another woman has a normal pregnancy, but has an abortion at 6 months. Both babies are in the same stage of development, but one is murder, and one is legal. Why?
People argue, "It's the woman's body, and the woman's choice. Male politicians should not be telling women what they can and can't do with their body." But it's not just their body. What about the baby's body? If the government was telling women they can't get plastic surgery, I would agree. It's her body, she can do whatever she wants with it. But the baby has a body too. Who's fighting for its rights?
Can you be more clear what your problem with the idea is?
Life is a word. The actual phenomena it describes itself is already hard to pin down. What we call life is really the accumulation and collection of various attributes. Why does it have to happen at one moment in time? Isn't more accurate to say it grows and withers?
Humans, however do not breathe water.
If your argument is that humans are fish then i dunno what to say.
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter