Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have heard those arguments in this thread. Science tells us that life begins at conception.
Science tells us that the ovum and sperm were both living cells before they met each other. Does that mean we should always allow them to evolve into human beings? Because the extension of this whole argument is that a woman should become pregnant at every opportunity, and a man should never waste his sperm except to inseminate a female. An ovum, sperm, or zygote all have the potential to become humans, but they're not humans themselves.
A pro choice position can easily say, "Yes it is a life and it is human...it's just that the mother is also a human with a life, and at a point in this process, her rights to autonomy are valid and important."
Maybe, (and it's a big maybe- because there are plenty of logical counterarguments to that as well), but either way I think that's a rather iffy and dangerous argument to be resting the basis of pro-choice on. And it's kind of a bit beside the point.
Murder is wrong. You can't go kill a human being. I'm pro-choice because a fetus is simply not a person. It's not yet an existing human being, at that point.
I do think we need to define all the terms we're using, here. That's not arguing semantics. Because we can't really discuss anything if we can't agree to set of defined terms. What is the definition of "life", what is the definition of "a life", what is the definition of "human", "a human", a "human being", a "person", etc.
Stealing straight from Wikipedia here, "Life is a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that have biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (they have died) or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate. Various forms of life exist, such as plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria. Biology is the science that studies life."
I mean, clearly that's not the term that we're talking about, with the abortion debate or with regards to whether something is murder, or the morality of how we deal with life. You can't murder bacteria. You can definitely murder a person. That's all I'm trying to make the point about.
I also want to take issue with semantics, particularly when they're used to imply something about fetal development and its impact on the abortion question.
Trimesters are artificial constructs based on the calendar, not on biology. At the end of the first trimester, nails are beginning to develop. During the next week, at the beginning of the second trimester, the "fetus" starts to drink amniotic fluid and starts to produce urine. I can't see how the presence or absence of nails vs pee makes one iota of difference in the abortion debate.
Then there's the embryo/fetus construct. Conventionally the term "embryo" is used through 8 weeks, and from 9 weeks onward, the term "fetus" is used. During the embryonic period, cells divide and start to differentiate into different organs, like the kidney, bones, heart, etc. During the fetal period, more development and growth occur.
However, embryonic and fetal development are a continuous process, and I think the application of temporal terms is very arbitrary and doesn't further discussion. Certain developmental milestones, like the ability to feel pain, or viability outside the womb seem to be better reference points for discussion and decision-making. JMO.
It seems that a rational view of abortion would include the sacrosanct matter of privacy between a woman and her doctor, just as our death with dignity laws are structured along the lines of respecting the individual's right. ...
Alas, the "death with dignity" issue is very much in the same vein as abortion. Opposition to the two, comes in the same quiver. The syllogism goes like this:
* life is holy
* Man is not to tamper with the holy
* Ergo, Man is not to tamper with life, be it at the very beginning (however we define that) or the very end.
As for the religious side of things in America, we ought to remember that the time of the Founding Fathers and their generation (last quarter of the 18th century) was a particularly secular and worldly time. All sorts of innovations in philosophy and politics were afoot. The subsequent generation, in America and even in Europe, was less secular and more faith-driven. Thus even as we venerate the American Founding Fathers, we do so with a squint and wink. Their casual attitude towards religion wasn't shared in the very same mainstream that so venerates them.
Second, it bears noting, that the various debates about "freedom of religion" and "separation of church and state" had more to do with sectarian impositions and squabbles, and the undesired intimacy between our civil and eccelsiastical authorities. There was little doubt that Christianity in whatever form was implicit in the the background. Essentially the exhortation was "You keep your Christianity out of my Christianity". It is hard to imagine that in America's formative years, or any time prior to the mid 20th century, a truly atheistic or even agnostic view could be publically upheld. Even today, imagine what would happen to a candidate for major political office, who announces that she or he is an atheist!
So we have to concede - and I do so as an atheist myself! - that for all of America's lofty rhetoric about religious freedom and necessary rift between the public and the private, the civic and the religious, our laws and mores and methods of government, our community life and our conception of the world, is rife with religion, with religious idiom and religious precepts. We squabble over what kind of religion, or really, what kind of Christianity... but those of us who reject religion outright, are few and insignificant.
It is one of the great marvels of modern sociology, how Europe and America took such radically divergent trajectories in their degree of religious persuasion, throughout the 20th century. In 1900 there was maybe little difference. By 2000 or the present, the difference is enormous. This is why, I think, the abortion debate is raging in America today, whereas in most of Europe - except the entrenched religious parts, such as Poland - the debate has long been settled.
You're interchanging the terms "a life" and "human being", as if that meant the same thing. A fetus is a life, in the sense that any distinct organism is, but it is not a human being. A human being has advanced intellectual development, and speech, among all the other aspects of our consciousness. For that reason, you can't possibly murder a fetus.
A fetus carried by a human woman is a human species and it is also a living being. If want to argue sentience, at some point while in the womb a fetus develops sentience. It’s unknown exactly when this develops but could be as early as 18 weeks. Do you support abortion once sentience is established? What about viability?
A pro choice position can easily say, "Yes it is a life and it is human...it's just that the mother is also a human with a life, and at a point in this process, her rights to autonomy are valid and important." The "brain activity/life support" arguments also support this idea, because although one may technically be ALIVE and HUMAN...there are still some instances where permitting that life to expire when it is not self-sustaining, are not generally considered to be murder.
I agree with this for the most part. I do think one can be pro choice while also recognizing that a life is taken with an abortion. It’s about weighing all aspects involved in the situation and that does tend to lead to people who think this way to want to put limits on abortion or draw the line somewhere during the pregnancy whether it’s 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 20 weeks, etc. That is where I stand.
I disagree with what you said about getting hung up on the meaning of words. Words have specific meaning and choosing our words carefully helps us to understand one another more clearly, it helps us refine our thoughts and beliefs and helps us ultimately to communicate better.
A fetus carried by a human woman is a human species and it is also a living being. If want to argue sentience, at some point while in the womb a fetus develops sentience. It’s unknown exactly when this develops but could be as early as 18 weeks. Do you support abortion once sentience is established? What about viability?
I would argue that it most definitely does not develop sentience in the womb. Sentience involves feeling emotions. That type of feeling, is what that term is dealing with. Not just simply nerve ending and reflex responses to sensory input. Again, all the terms are important, as it depends on how we define 'sentience'.
If we go by a definition of 'sentience' that just says it's any 'feeling' type sensation (sensory input), then that's not my criteria of what a person is, so yes, I would support the right to abortion. All kinds of even very simple animals have that property, of 'sentience', and we don't consider them to be people.
Maybe the term 'sapience' is closer related to the important concept for me, rather than 'sentience'.
Whatever the thing is that even allows you and me to have this conversation, is the reason why it's morally wrong and should be legally prohibited, to kill us. I would say that's something more than basic brain activity and functions that most animals possess.
Words have specific meaning and choosing our words carefully helps us to understand one another more clearly, it helps us refine our thoughts and beliefs and helps us ultimately to communicate better.
I also want to take issue with semantics, particularly when they're used to imply something about fetal development and its impact on the abortion question.
Trimesters are artificial constructs based on the calendar, not on biology. At the end of the first trimester, nails are beginning to develop. During the next week, at the beginning of the second trimester, the "fetus" starts to drink amniotic fluid and starts to produce urine. I can't see how the presence or absence of nails vs pee makes one iota of difference in the abortion debate.
Then there's the embryo/fetus construct. Conventionally the term "embryo" is used through 8 weeks, and from 9 weeks onward, the term "fetus" is used. During the embryonic period, cells divide and start to differentiate into different organs, like the kidney, bones, heart, etc. During the fetal period, more development and growth occur.
However, embryonic and fetal development are a continuous process, and I think the application of temporal terms is very arbitrary and doesn't further discussion. Certain developmental milestones, like the ability to feel pain, or viability outside the womb seem to be better reference points for discussion and decision-making. JMO.
There are a lot of factors to consider and some are arbitrary. With abortion, the procedure used for first trimester abortions is different than the procedure used for second and third trimester abortions. That plays role in my mind. We all have different and sometimes arbitrary ideas of when abortion is ok and when it’s not. For some that means never for others it means up until birth. Most fall somewhere in between.
I would argue that it most definitely does not develop sentience in the womb. Sentience involves feeling emotions. That type of feeling, is what that term is dealing with. Not just simply nerve ending and reflex responses to sensory input. Again, all the terms are important, as it depends on how we define 'sentience'.
If we go by a definition of 'sentience' that just says it's any 'feeling' type sensation (sensory input), then that's not my criteria of what a person is, so yes, I would support the right to abortion. All kinds of even very simple animals have that property, of 'sentience', and we don't consider them to be people.
Maybe the term 'sapience' is closer related to the important concept for me, rather than 'sentience'.
Whatever the thing is that even allows you and me to have this conversation, is the reason why it's morally wrong and should be legally prohibited, to kill us. I would say that's something more than basic brain activity and functions that most animals possess.
Scientific evidence shows that sentience does develop for the fetus in the womb. At the absolute earliest a fetus develops sentience at 18-24 weeks but it’s more plausible at 30. If being sentient is the cutoff point than one would be against abortion and have heir cutoff at some point between 18 and 30 weeks. If viability is the cutoff, 21 weeks is the earliest a baby has survived outside the womb. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...67059209161911
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
