|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4953 days) Posts: 228 From: jo'burg, RSA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Right to Life Ethical Considerations | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
U can call me Cookie Member (Idle past 4953 days) Posts: 228 From: jo'burg, RSA Joined: |
I know this has come up many times before, but its something that I’ve had discussions about outside of this arena.
I’ll say it from the outset . while I can’t answer as to how I feel about abortion (I haven’t been faced with the situation), I do feel that, ultimately; the choice lies with the mother. Whenever I do discuss abortion, however, a few things do occur to me: Is there any consensus as to when life begins? And should, this play a role in determining the right or wrong of abortion? If a foetus is regarded as alive, or if we can’t answer the above, can this certainty / uncertainty be used against abortion? That is, why would we not regard abortion, legally, as murder, if we knew that the foetus was alive? And if we don’t have an answer, why would we not err on the side of caution? If we do know that the foetus is alive, would a woman’s right to self-determination trump the foetus’ right to life? Why? Why not? People, we all know that abortion debates have the potential to be incendiary. This is not the aim of this thread. If at all possible, let’s try and flesh out these ethical issues, while respecting each other rights of opinion. "The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I do not think that the issue is when life begins.
The issue is when that life becomes human.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
U can call me Cookie Member (Idle past 4953 days) Posts: 228 From: jo'burg, RSA Joined: |
Provocative statement.
I'm not fully sure of what you mean, though. What is it before it becomes human? A living ball of cells? A humanoid embryo? If this is the case, then when does this happen? Do the laws take this into account?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If we do know that the foetus is alive, would a woman’s right to self-determination trump the foetus’ right to life? Why? Why not? Does a hobo's right to live trump your right to control who is allowed inside your home? Or rather, don't you have the right to use force - deadly, if it becomes necessary - to protect your home against intrusion? Is the right different when it's not your house, it's your uterus? Doesn't a woman have an absolute right to determine, at any time, whether or not other humans are allowed to take residence there?
That is, why would we not regard abortion, legally, as murder, if we knew that the foetus was alive? Because the fetus is trespassing, stealing, and endangering the life of the mother. Defending yourself against a dangerous intruder is not murder. A fetus may very well be a human being with rights. It may not. But a woman definately is, despite what social conservatives would prefer, and so the moral calculus isn't that hard for me. When I weigh the life of the mother against the life of something that can't even mentally experience being alive, that's not a difficult choice for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: At various stages of development, it's each of these things. Remember, ALL of the cells in your body are alive.
quote: link to chart of embryonic development quote: Yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
U can call me Cookie Member (Idle past 4953 days) Posts: 228 From: jo'burg, RSA Joined: |
Does a hobo's right to live trump your right to control who is allowed inside your home? Or rather, don't you have the right to use force - deadly, if it becomes necessary - to protect your home against intrusion? My rights to do so are still limited. As you say, deadly force is allowed, only if necessary. If I cap a hobo in my home, with no immediate threat forecoming, i'm going to jail.While i agree that there are dangers in pregnancy, these are usually potential dangers, not immediate threats. If they were immediate threats, which sometimes happens, then the situation would certainly be more clear cut. When I weigh the life of the mother against the life of something that can't even mentally experience being alive, that's not a difficult choice for me. Surely you can't be that certain a foetus (of a certain age) can't experience being alive? Is the life of the mother always in danger? No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Just to add a bit to what schraf wrote.
I'm not fully sure of what you mean, though. What is it before it becomes human? A living ball of cells? A humanoid embryo? The question really boils down to what defines "human". Ethical/moral dimension aside, I think a case could be made that it is the advanced brains that come closest to distinguishing our species from most others, specifically the prefrontal association complex of the cerebral cortex - the main control processor that appears to involve planning and abstract thought. There is, however, a difference between when "life" begins - which is probably the moment of conception - and when "human life" begins - somewhere during the late second trimester with the development of the pre-frontal cortex. It's not a great dividing line, primarily because there's no hard and fast moment when the association becomes "functional", but the idea is at least biologically tenable.
Do the laws take this into account? No. The Supreme Court (US) defines life as beginning when the neonate takes its first breath. I think this is neither biologically nor ethically defensible. Especially since the limit of viability has been continually pushed back by technology to now hovering somewhere around the 21st week of gestation (I could be wrong on that - and in any event a premie that early has some severe developmental problems).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Surely you can't be that certain a foetus (of a certain age) can't experience being alive? I am certain that a fairly completely formed brain is required to experience being alive: no brain, no experience. A huge percentage of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted due to genetic/developmental issues, essentially rejected as defective. If nature (or God, if you wish) works comfortably with a system that discards so much potential human life, then any line we draw between the sanctity of fetal life and the interests of the mother's health, (physical, emotional, physical), or the mother's preferences, is surely arbitrary. The abandonment of defective or unwelcome babies is historically common and continues today: I say this not to endorse the practice, per se, but to point out that safe abortions are an advance in both technology and humaneness from historically common practices. Sperm is alive; eggs are alive: should they enjoy protection against donor procedures, masturbation, and contraceptives? Many abortion opponents would say they do. Most opponents of abortion make exceptions in the case of rape, though this exception is inconsistent with a position defined by an overarching regard for the sanctity of life. This inconsistency points to what I feel is the true reason for much opposition to abortion: a desire to control female sexuality with punitive consequences. I would prefer to see the notion of the sanctity of human life applied to the millions of starving, malnourished, stunted and exploited children at hand. Like the conservative notion of "property rights," the right to life is (apologies to Hamlet!) honored more in the breach than the observance; as "property rights" defend a certain social status quo (who is a have and who a have-not), so the "right to life" champions primarily seek a social control for which they have no warrant. Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Cookie writes: My rights to do so are still limited. As you say, deadly force is allowed, only if necessary. If I cap a hobo in my home, with no immediate threat forecoming, i'm going to jail. About a quarter of the states now allow you to use deadly force against an intruder crashing through your door (setting up some interesting situations, given the recent SCOTUS decision endorsing no-knock entries by police). Many states (Florida and Texas come to mind) have also changed their laws to remove the somewhat traditional element of measured response: you no longer have to use lethal force as a last resort, being required to back away from the threat if possible. You can stand your ground and plug 'em. Now that's sanctity (of the gun owner's) life for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2892 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Is the life of the mother always in danger? No. Actually there is always some risk, however small, to the life and health of the mother in carrying a baby to term. And generally the risk is greater than the risks of an induced abortion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
U can call me Cookie Member (Idle past 4953 days) Posts: 228 From: jo'burg, RSA Joined: |
I am certain that a fairly completely formed brain is required to experience being alive: no brain, no experience. Point taken. Been doing a bit of looking around, and it seems that Brain birth and Viability are often used as yardsticks of human life.
A huge percentage of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted due to genetic/developmental issues, essentially rejected as defective. If nature (or God, if you wish) works comfortably with a system that discards so much potential human life, then any line we draw between the sanctity of fetal life and the interests of the mother's health, (physical, emotional, physical), or the mother's preferences, is surely arbitrary. More than are actually born, methinks.Be careful with this argument, tho' Omni, lest people think you're "playing God" Have declined to answer the rest since i probably feel the same way you do about these points.
About a quarter of the states now allow you to use deadly force against an intruder crashing through your door (setting up some interesting situations, given the recent SCOTUS decision endorsing no-knock entries by police). Many states (Florida and Texas come to mind) have also changed their laws to remove the somewhat traditional element of measured response: you no longer have to use lethal force as a last resort, being required to back away from the threat if possible. You can stand your ground and plug 'em. Now that's sanctity (of the gun owner's) life for you.
Hmmmm... not the case in RSA. seems our laws are a lot stricter regarding use of deadly force. At least, since the new constitution. Still don't regard that line of reasoning as valid justification for abortion tho'. Don't think the courts do either (one of the reasons why they'd rather define a foetus as not a person). Anyway, a foetus is more like a squatter than a murderous intruder. And when it comes to squatting, the laws are even messier.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
U can call me Cookie Member (Idle past 4953 days) Posts: 228 From: jo'burg, RSA Joined: |
Actually there is always some risk, however small, to the life and health of the mother in carrying a baby to term. And generally the risk is greater than the risks of an induced abortion. Agreed. But risk implies potential, not immediate, danger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: As schraf put it, the question should be when the fetus becomes "human", which in my opinion means when it becomes a sentient and/or conscious being (the ideas I have on this are very close to Peter Singer's). Certainly during the first three months of gestation, the fetus doesn't have a functioning brain, and so clearly isn't "human" in this sense and so has no rights whatsoever. By the time the child is five years old, it seems clear to me that it has developed consciousness to a degree that should guarantee it certain rights. Where between these two times is the "cut-off" is open up to debate. I feel that consciousness needs a certain amount of experience in order to develop, and so I am of the opinion that abortion should be allowed up to birth. After that, things get a little uncertain, and I would advocate that we use birth as this cut-off so that we can be sure that we aren't terminating the life of a human being. "These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not." -- Ernie Cline
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I am no pro-lifer mind you.
What if a woman changes her mind in labor and wants to abort? What is the difference between a fetus halfway down the birth canal and a newborn baby except a couple of hours of elapsed time? Extend that a bit to the day before. What is the difference between an in utero fetus 1 day before it is born and a newborn in terms of its humanity? That being said, a blastocyst certainly is NOT a human. There is a very grey cutoff point but I in no way believe birth is some kind of miraculous transformation from non-human to human. I personally think the most ethical position to take since we cannot know when consciousness begins would be to pin it at the moment we can detect higher order brain activity which I believe is somewhere in the 2nd trimester. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If I cap a hobo in my home, with no immediate threat forecoming, i'm going to jail. A stranger in your home, with no right to be there, is always an immediate threat. He puts you and your family at risk. The problem here is that you still think of abortion as the murder of a fetus. It's not. It's the eviction of a fetus. The fact that the fetus can't survive anywhere but that one woman's womb is not her fault, or our fault. It's the fetus's fault for being there, as far as I'm concerned. It's a slight tragedy that the fetus might not have intended to be there, but there it is, and it's certainly taking actions that put the health of the mother in danger. If she doesn't want it there, it has to go. End of story. She has an absolute right to determine what human beings are allowed to reside in her uterus, at any time.
Is the life of the mother always in danger? No. I'd say that it is. The leading cause of death, worldwide, for women ages 13-18 is pregnancy. You may have heard the term "complications from pregnancy", but that's a misnomer. The stresses that a developing fetus places on a mother's body simply kill the mother, sometimes.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024