|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: My views on abortion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
themasterdebator Inactive Member |
I had written this essay a few months ago and would like some kritiks on it. While I doubt I am bringing something new and revolutionary, I have not really seen anyone post a similar viewpoint. Please enjoy:
Society tends to hold small children and babies as the most precious class of humans. Consider, all else equal, if a person was forced to choose between saving the life of a baby and a fully grown adult, the most common choice would be to save the life of the baby. Now, why is this? Lets assume the fully grown adult is your average law abiding citizen. He is a more productive member of society, has most likely more friends and family, and is much more afraid of death than the baby(who has not developed enough to even have a true understanding of the concept of death). If we simply look at the current status of each being, the adult has much more to lose by dieing. He wins out. So why do we choose to the baby? The same could be said for many species of animals. The common prairie dog has roughly the intelligence of a two year old. It "experiences" life more than any six month old. So why would we possibly want to save the six month old? Is it simply humans being selfish and saving their own kind? Or is there something that makes the baby worth more? The answer is potential. When we look at the baby, we see its future. The opportunity to learn its first word, crack its first smile. These basic parts of life which it has not experienced, but will. The adult has already lived through these actions. Its future will be worth less than the babies because it has already experienced these basic actions. When we consider the adult and babies potential for the future, the baby wins out. Now, lets consider a unborn child. Right now, he is not very intelligent. He does not have cognitive awareness. His current existence is not all that valuable. Yet, just like the baby, he has potential. Assuming no outside interference, he has an entire life's worth of experiences ahead of him. This is what gives his life value. The fact that unless someone takes an action to stop him, he will have a future full of experiences to live. Yes, the unborn child could be born into a poor life. He could grow up to commit crime or live in poverty, but so can the baby. Does it make it okay for a parent to kill their baby? No, because it, like the unborn, has potential. As humans, we have the potential to rise above bad situations and change our lives for the better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi masterdebator,
From this post I really don't get a feel for what your stance on "abortion" is.
Yes, the unborn child could be born into a poor life. He could grow up to commit crime or live in poverty, but so can the baby. Does it make it okay for a parent to kill their baby? No, because it, like the unborn, has potential. As humans, we have the potential to rise above bad situations and change our lives for the better.
If it's just the "potential for a future" that we should consider, then why stop at fetus? I'd say every sperm has the potential to become the next Einstein or Martin Luther King. But when you masterbate we don't seem any bit concerned with the "potential" humans that we clean off with a dirty t-shirt. They don't get wisked off to sperm heaven and get reincarnated, they're gone forever, never having a chance at a future. Life is relevant when it's born, IMO. Until then it has to overcome the challenges that every single organism faces, mainly, survival. - Oni If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. ~George Carlin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Even if all your arguments about the potential of a fetus or a baby were true, the fundamental reason that abortion is ethical and should remain legal is that the MOTHER has an essential right to body sovereignty.
Every free human being, men and women, fundamentally has the right to the privacy of the condition and disposition of their own person. For women that includes deciding to be or stay pregnant. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
If it's just the "potential for a future" that we should consider, then why stop at fetus? I'd say every sperm has the potential to become the next Einstein or Martin Luther King. But when you masterbate we don't seem any bit concerned with the "potential" humans that we clean off with a dirty t-shirt. They don't get wisked off to sperm heaven and get reincarnated, they're gone forever, never having a chance at a future. Life is relevant when it's born, IMO. Until then it has to overcome the challenges that every single organism faces, mainly, survival. Clearly, every time an unfertilized egg exists its potential mother during the woman's menstrual cycle, another potential child has been murdered. Unprotected sex should be compulsory for all non-pregnant women to prevent the death of the innocent unfertilized egg. MENSTRUATION IS MURDER! /sarcasm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
If the argument is potential, then, what if we could find a model to rpedict the life of the future person? Would we then be able to abort some fetuses and not others?
For example: Let's say the mother is a poor, drug addicted woman whose last three kids have turned out to have had terrible lives including being beaten and abused by their family, born with birth defects caused by their mother's drug use, and that 2 of them have ended up dying from their conditions. Should the mother then abort their child because the potential of that child is very bad? This argument assumes that the "potential" is always good. Life, in general, is not good or bad, it's the opportunites and experiences in that life that make life good or bad. There are a number of people who decide that life is just pain and misery and decide to end their lives. Who are we to say whether a person's future life is automatically good or not? What we can see, however, is the mother's current life, and she can decide whether a child will enhance or detract from her life's experiences, and thus we can operate off of that. Another problem with your argument is that it places a higher value on something that is not human than something that is. The baby places great strain on the mother's body and mind. It takes a lot of energy to let the baby grow. Do I have the right to come over and hook myself up to your liver because yours is good and mine is bad? Why not? How about if I'm younger than you and thus have more potential? Still no? How hypocritical of you! And we're both humans, a blastocyst isn't. The reason we save a baby and not an adult is not because we value the baby more, its because the baby can't save itself and that we are hardwired to respond toward a baby differently than an adult. A baby brings out our protective instinct, which is evolutionarily advantageous. As people have pointed out, a sperm or an unfertilized egg has the potential to become a person. As science advances, every cell in your body could, theoretically, become a child if it is cloned, thus meaning every time you shed skin cells and vaccuum or dust them off your furniture, you're committing murder. The truth is, we enact laws that protect actual people and actual animals, with a heirarchy. A human is worth more than an animal, always and every time. This is narcisitic from a species viewpoint, but it's still what it is. Dogs, cats, other "higher" animals have more value than a housefly, which apparently has little to no value as they are killed indiscriminately all the time. Cells, have even less value than an animal because we have absolutely no laws protecting the skin cells on your arm. Why do we protect the cells in a woman's womb more than the cells of your arm? Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
MENSTRUATION IS MURDER! Lets not forget the words of the prophet: - Oni If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. ~George Carlin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard Townsend Member (Idle past 4732 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined: |
Every free human being, men and women, fundamentally has the right to the privacy of the condition and disposition of their own person. For women that includes deciding to be or stay pregnant. This argument always puzzles me. It assumes that the fetus is part of the mother's body. I don't agree that it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard Townsend Member (Idle past 4732 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined: |
Why do we protect the cells in a woman's womb more than the cells of your arm? I can't take this argument seriously. Cells in the womb (if things go ok) become a human being, who undoubtedly deserves rights. There is an issue of when the rights kick in - which is at the heart of the abortion debate. Cells shed from the skin never become a human being and therefore the rights issue never arises. You may say potentially they could do, but as things stand, that is not true. Plus cells in my arm are me and I have the right to decide what to do with them. Edited by Richard Townsend, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I can't take this argument seriously. Cells in the womb (if things go ok) become a human being, who undoubtedly deserves rights. There is an issue of when the rights kick in - which is at the heart of the abortion debate. Cells shed from the skin never become a human being and therefore the rights issue never arises. You may say potentially they could do, but as things stand, that is not true. Plus cells in my arm are me and I have the right to decide what to do with them. At what point are the cells that make up a fetus no longer part of the woman? Are the eggs in her ovaries all separate individual potential human beings with some degree of rights? Should we mourn for each menstrual cycle? Does the egg become its own individualized self separate from the mother when it is fertilized? Should we then mourn for the 80% or so fertilized eggs that are expelled through menstruation before even implanting in the uterus? Does the egg become an individual when it implants on the uterus? At this point it's still just a bundle of cells, and most people would be hard-pressed to distinguish the fetus from a cluster of skin cells under a microscope. At what point does the "potentiality" of being a human being kick in? And what's the rationale that makes your distinction not completely arbitrary?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Cells shed from the skin never become a human being and therefore the rights issue never arises. You may say potentially they could do, but as things stand, that is not true. Cloning can take a skin cell and use it to make a human being, so it's potentially a human being. The fact that you don't allow all of these potential human beings to become one is the point. We think it's ludicrous to say anyone is morally wrong for letting their skin cells slough away, but then say the cell/cells in a womb are deserving of rights because they can become a person. (Most do not, BTW, most pregnancies are miscarried or lost naturally, often before the woman even knows she's pregnant.)
Plus cells in my arm are me and I have the right to decide what to do with them. How are they you? Is it because they're genetically the same? Is it because they're attached? If they fall off, do they stop being you? Does vaccuuming up your skin cells and throwing them away count as self-mutilation? If it's genetic, if someone cloned you, would they still be you, and therefore yours to do with as you please? Why isn't a blastocyst the mother? Why isn't it owned by the father and mother, who are each halfway genetically identical? Why is one group of cells given more rights or priority over another group of cells, neither of which can live without the support of a complete living organism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5006 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
It assumes that the fetus is part of the mother's body. I don't agree that it is.
Physiologically, biologically, mentally, emotionally and visually. Whichever way you look at it, the foetus *is* part of the mother's body until it comes out.
Plus cells in my arm are me and I have the right to decide what to do with them. And cells in a mothers womb are hers and she has the right to decide what to do with them. Why the double standards? "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
This argument always puzzles me. It assumes that the fetus is part of the mother's body. I don't agree that it is. No, it doesn't. It assumes a women has sovereign right over her body, and that includes whether or not she wishes to use it as an incubator.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Physiologically, biologically, mentally, emotionally and visually. Whichever way you look at it, the foetus *is* part of the mother's body until it comes out. Physiologically? No. Although the degree of seperation depends on the age of the fetus, there is always a divide between mother and child. Biologically? Well, biologically, it's part of a different life cycle, formed by differing genes. This is most clearly illustrated by looking at the life cycles of non-viviparous organisms - from a biological point of view a fetus is quite distinct from the mother (and, as numerous features of the placenta will attest, importantly so) Mentally? You have to be joking. Ignoring the part of pregnancy in which the fetus has no mental state*, it's quite clear that the mother has no access to the mental processes of the fetus. A mother does not acquire any neuronal link to the fetal brain, nor to the various hormones and neurotransmitters it operates with. You need only ask a mother whether she has any control over her baby kicking her to demonstrate the seperation. Emotionally? No. The emotional centres of the fetus are quite seperate; and while there is some crossover of the key chemicals, the placenta is pretty effective at keeping them apart. Visually? Perhaps, providing you stick to a crude external examination. * - in which, btw, the vast majority of abortions are carried out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
It assumes a women has sovereign right over her body, and that includes whether or not she wishes to use it as an incubator. This brings up an ethical question, at least to me as an outsider looking in. Where else, if not in the mothers womb, can a fetus be incubated? Note, I am pro-choice, but only because I don't actually care what anyone does, on any matter until it affects me personally. But if we take the argument on ethics or morality, it can get complicated as to where to draw the line. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Richard,
Cells in the womb (if things go ok) become a human being, who undoubtedly deserves rights. There is an issue of when the rights kick in - which is at the heart of the abortion debate. But is consciousness that big of a difference, from simply being alive, to where we feel absolutely no sympathy for animals that we slaughter for food*? But yet we do feel sympathy for a fetus that isn't born yet? That seems so hypocritical to me. *(Note: I'm not a vegan. I love meat and see no reason to stop slaughtering animlas for food) ------------------------------------------------- In other words, what doesn't deserve rights, and where do we draw the line? Is shooting a chimp murder? If not, why not? Is shooting a dog murder? Or a dolphin? Or any mammal, muder? Why are humans exempt from being killed for a benefitial purpose but not any other animal? (except for extinct species, which I question also). What's so special about humans? - Oni If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. ~George Carlin
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024