The Question is Not Whether Life is Present
The argument about when life begins is a diversion from the real issue, which is an examination of when personhood begins. Life does not begin at any specific moment in time, it continues. Does anybody ask whether the sperm and the egg are alive? No, they don’t, because the issue is not whether life is present, but whether personhood is.
In that context, it is understandable why Catholic teaching on personhood has changed over time. Currently, the Catholic hierarchy and its antichoice allies argue that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. This view first emerged in the 17th century, when scientists, looking at fertilized eggs through magnifying glasses and primitive microscopes, imagined that they saw tiny, fully formed animal fetuses.
Improved scientific investigations lead the church hierarchy to reject the notion that a fetus is a fully formed person, but the hierarchy retained its claim that life begins at conception to suit its political goals. In its last statement on abortion, the 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion, the Vatican acknowledged that it does not know when the fetus becomes a person: “There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement.” This brought us back to a previous incarnation of church teachings, neither St. Augustine nor St. Thomas Aquinas, two of the most important theologians in the Catholic tradition, considered the fetus in the early stages of pregnancy to be a person. St. Augustine maintained that the soul was implanted at 46 days while St. Aquinas maintained that the souls of girls were implanted at 90 days and the souls of boys at 40 days.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
"The question is not whether life is present." Yes it is, look at the top of the page. An embryo is alive, not dead. Now what that means to abortion is another question.
This is a scientific question. The Question should be better put this way: When does the life of a distinct human being begins? There is no debate here: science tell us that the life of each and everyone of us begins at conception when two haploid cells unite and fuse to create a new diploid cell called zygote that through constant and driven development will terminate it's existance with death.
Personhood (that shouldn't be confused with ensoulment) is a philosophic question and is not the subject of the debate.
Best link: http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html
What species is the embryo created by two homo sapiens?
Biologically, a new distinct human organism is created at conception. Jon is right that the issue is not when life begins, because we know that. It is when that life has value. The value of a new human life is where we disagree. Whether this new life deserves protection under the law. Whether or not is has a " soul ."
So if there is not a consensus about value, and probably never will be, why is that those that want to be able to dispose of embryos and fetuses "on demand" automatically win? Why is the burden of proof on those that think all life has value? If someone wants to take what is biologically a human organism and end its existence, is it not on them to prove that life DOES NOT for certain have value? If we cannot know for certain should we not always err on the side of life, not death?
I am reminded of an analogy from my philosophy professor in college . You are hunting in the woods with your friends. You hear a rustle in the bushes. It could be a deer. It could be one of your friends. Do you shot?
In other words, when uncertain you err on the side of life. Always.
I agree that personhood is the issue far more than "when does life begin." My personal sense is that "personhood" comes at the point when a fetus would be capable of survival outside the uterus, albeit with whatever medical interventions were necessary. Thus, the onset of "personhood" will fluctuate based upon existing technologies for sustain the life of the fetus outside the uterus. Currently the limit would be somewhere between 21-23 weeks. I suspect that this will change over the next few decades, allowing fetuses at lesser and lesser weeks of gestation to be sustained outside the uterus.
Once a fetus is capable of being sustained outside the uterus, I would consider it to have independent life, and therefore, personhood, including the right to not be terminated. If we reach a point where an embryo of a single day's gestation can be safely removed from the uterus and brought to term entirely in vitro, then I'd say that the days of justifiable abortion will be at an end. Until then, it would seem to me that a declaration of personhood would have to take into consideration the rights of the mother whose body is carrying the pregnancy.
I do not believe that any pregnancy should be terminated once it has reached a point where the fetus would be viable outside the uterus, unless the mother's life or health is at serious risk and the fetus cannot be safely removed without further risk to the mother. If a fetus is not viable, however, including for reasons such as anencephaly, then the continuation of the pregnancy should be at the mother's discretion.
Hi,
First of all after reading all the comments on this page we can agree that everybody aknowledge that the only answer to When does life begins (or more accurately as tbcass said When does the beginning of human development start) it's at conception.
Now about personhood vs humanity. To try and separate these terms has already been done several times in the past: in Nazi Germany the Jews were stripped of their personhood. In America, the native american and the african american were too stripped of their personhood. If you look in any dictionary the definition of personhood is: a human being.
What you suggest here is that, based upon actual technology a human being has to be considered a "person" with all the rights that all other human beings have including the one fundamental right to life, a fetus get these rights when he's able to survive outside the womb.
Let me ask you some questions:
What about babies? Don't they also depend on his mother for sustaining (just as the fetus depends on the mother on this one thing). and what about old people who can't care of themselves?
How did the fetus got into the mother's womb?, Was it the holy spirit or a consequence of her acts (ok, except raping)? We could say that the inconvenience is a direct consequence of her adult decision.
Since when an inconvenience (of any kind, i can think of a lot worse than just being pregnant) can justify the "right to not be terminated" (killing) of a human being.
Humanity does not depend on where (womb, house, car), how developped or how big (embryo, foetus, baby, toadler, adult), or how dependent we are, humanity starts when the genetic code of a man and a woman unite to form a new and unique kind of the homo sapiens sapiens specie.
Any voluntarily interruption at any stage of the developpement of that human is by definition a homocide.
Last thought about your :"If we reach a point where an embryo of a single day's gestation can be safely removed from the uterus and brought to term entirely in vitro, then I'd say that the days of justifiable abortion will be at an end"
This is even scarier that what i saw in Matrix.
Babies and the (disabled) elderly are most certainly dependent, and rely upon the care of an adult in order to survive. The difference, however, is that ANY competent adult can reasonbly meet their survival needs. In the case of a fetus prior to somewhere between 21-23 weeks, it is not capable of survival outside the uterus in which it originally implanted (at least, not at this stage of our medical/technological development). It is, in essence, a "parasite" (by strict medical definition) upon the mother's system. It is reliant upon continued physical embedding within the mother's system to survive. It is incapable of survival outside the uterus, EVEN IF another adult is willing to take on its feeding and care.
That is the difference between viability outside the uterus and non-viability outside the uterus. For purposes of determining whose rights supercede whose, I believe that the mother's rights to her own body and to governing the processes of her own body supercede any rights of the fetus until such time as the fetus would be viable outside of the uterus.
That said, if a mother is planning to terminate her pregnancy for reasons other than life or health, I believe this definitely should be done prior to viability outside the uterus AND should be done absolutely as early in the pregnancy as she is aware that she is pregnant, preferably within the first couple of weeks past her missed period.
I would love to see technology developed which could take a fetus or embryo as far back as fertilization, and allow that fetus to be removed from the uterus at any time and to develop in vitro to full term. If such technology were available, I would agree that there was no further use for abortion other than for fetuses incapable of survival outside the uterus for reasons of physical malformation, such as anencephaly.
I would also love to see a world which so focused on the PREVENTION of unwanted pregnancies, that abortion rates fell to zero because every pregnancy was a planned and wanted pregnancy. But we won't get to that point with "abstinence only" education. We will need to learn to be frank with our youth about BOTH abstinence AND other forms of contraception, and to make those contraceptives easier to obtain than chewing gum.
"In the case of a fetus prior to somewhere between 21-23 weeks, it is not capable of survival outside the uterus in which it originally implanted (at least, not at this stage of our medical/technological development). It is, in essence, a "parasite" (by strict medical definition) upon the mother's system. It is reliant upon continued physical embedding within the mother's system to survive"
My objections:
The fetus didnt implanted because he decided to do so. The resposability of it's existence is it's mother's that engaged in a sexual intercourse. This is a basic difference from a parasite.
The mother is not just some adult willing to take care of the child. There is a unique and beautiful connection between these two beings and it makes the case against abortion even more painful for this.
So the only two things that the fetus needs is: food (by aid of the umbilical cord) and space (the womb). Just as babies need food (mother's milk) and a place to stay (it's mother's home). The only difference is that the babies needs can be replaced by any willing adult while before week 21-23 the baby needs can be covered by one person only: it's mother.
Isn't it sad that the one person that with her acting brought him to life and the one person who as the duty to take care of him is the one person that wants to terminate his life?
Yeah, I know that the comparison tends to offend, but the fact is, there is very little difference between the two. You claim that the difference is that women have sex by choice and become pregnant. But people frequently acquire parasites through a voluntary act, too: Eating.
While certainly one can go far longer without sex than without eating, still both ARE voluntary actions which may result in a foreign living thing coming to attach itself to the inside of the host’s body and drawing its sustenance from the host without providing any particular symbiotic benefit to the host. So, from a scientific perspective, there really is very little difference between the two.
Men (and sometimes women) tend to take very lightly the physical, psychological, and sometimes economic investment a woman makes during the 40 weeks of pregnancy. Pregnancy is a body- and life-changing event which up until about ½-century ago, was the leading cause of mortality among women.
As it is, today, something like 4 in 1000 women will die, worldwide, as a result of pregnancy. In developed nations, the lifetime risk of a woman dying as a result of one of her pregnancies is around 1 in 2800, but in places like sub-Saharan Africa, about 1 out of every 16 women will die as a result of one of her pregnancies over the course of her childbearing years.
There are many women whose lives are at risk if they become pregnant. There are some whose long-term health is at risk from pregnancy. Some rely upon medications to control medical conditions, which medications may not be compatible with pregnancy. Some women will lose their jobs if they become pregnant, particularly if they have bedrest. Some women are caring for several infants and toddlers already, who rely on them, and cannot undergo the stress of another pregnancy, let alone care for their existing children during a difficult pregnancy. Sometimes minors become pregnant before their bodies are strong and developed enough to support a pregnancy without risking severe damage. Some women become pregnant as a result of rape, and have no choice in the matter at all.
Just because a woman chooses (or is forced) to have sex does not mean that she is ipso facto giving consent to the complete takeover of her body by another being for the next 9 months of her life. There are some very good reasons why women make the difficult choice to terminate a pregnancy.
I have made perfectly clear that I would be overjoyed if there were no further need for abortions in this world. But there are some very valid reasons for a woman to have one. And such decisions are best made by a woman and her doctor, rather than being forced upon her by society. A rape victim, for instance, who is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is being raped yet again by society. Her control of her body was taken from her by the rapist, and is again taken from her, at an even deeper and more violating level, by society’s compelling her to risk her very life and health to carry the pregnancy to term.
You are right, from a scientific point of view a parasite is a living being that relies on a foreign body to sustain itself.
"While certainly one can go far longer without sex than without eating, still both ARE voluntary actions which may result in a foreign living thing coming to attach itself to the inside of the host’s body and drawing its sustenance from the host without providing any particular symbiotic benefit to the host"
Objection:
A foetus is not a foreign living thing, it's a blood-relative human.
This is the point that the pro-life and myself think is the reason we consider abortion an injustice as bad as a genocide: every tiny little embryo or fetus is already a HUMAN being from the point it's continuous development starts: conception. There are no substancial changes in it's genetic code from that moment on. From the moment an egg is fertilized no external agent interfere with it to change it's composition. Any interruption of it's development to a new born baby is the termination of a human being. I think we all agree that all humans have the same rights.
If you accept this hypotesis then let's look at your comment under this spotlight:
"Men (and sometimes women) tend to take very lightly the physical, psychological, and sometimes economic investment a woman makes during the 40 weeks of pregnancy"
> This is so very true, it is a huge change to the woman that becomes pregnant, i don't deny it.
Now as you said it only lasts 40 weeks, a temporary condition. Abortion is permanent, it terminates the life of an innocent human being.
"As it is, today, something like 4 in 1000 women will die, worldwide, as a result of pregnancy. In developed nations, the lifetime risk of a woman dying as a result of one of her pregnancies is around 1 in 2800, but in places like sub-Saharan Africa, about 1 out of every 16 women will die as a result of one of her pregnancies over the course of her childbearing years"
> The number of induced abortions declined worldwide between 1995 and 2003, from nearly 46 million to approximately 42 million. About one in five pregnancies worldwide end in abortion.
(The Alan Guttmacher Institute)
Your stats: 0.4 % CHANCES to die during chilbirth (0.28 in developed nations).
My stats: 20% CERTAIN death of a human being.
What is worse?
As for all the reasons you consider can justify an abortion:
Are any of these, except a life danger situation for the mother, enough to justify the suppression of a human life?
"There are many women whose lives are at risk if they become pregnant"
>This is not true, these are your stats: 0.4% chances of death during childbirth
"Some women will lose their jobs if they become pregnant, particularly if they have bedrest"
>This is sadly true, but shouldn't we ask our politicians to protect the pregnant woman instead of just send them to abortion clinics? This is a point i see we both agree as you said in an earlier post: there is certainly more to do to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and aid women to carry on their pregnancy.
"Some women are caring for several infants and toddlers already, who rely on them, and cannot undergo the stress of another pregnancy"
> Is it justified, in such a case to suppress one of it's children to make life easier for her? That would be infanticide, no matter the excuse. Why is it possible to kill the one she carries inside? Because we don't see it, it is acceptable to kill it?
"Sometimes minors become pregnant before their bodies are strong and developed enough to support a pregnancy without risking severe damage"
> Here again we should work on making these pregnancies an exception. No severe damage is worse than death.
On the rape issue: The statistics tell us that less than 1% of abortions is done because of a rape.
This is a very emotive issue that pro-abortion advocates love to expose.
This is nonetheless a tragic outcome of a rape, to get pregnant of the man that violated you.
But how suppressing a human life makes it easier? Isn't it killing even worse than the act of raping?
How aborting will help overcome what happened to her? She will have to carry the child for 9 months and then give it into adoption.
"...there are some very valid reasons for a woman to have one. And such decisions are best made by a woman and her doctor, rather than being forced upon her by society"
> A lot of people i talked to upon the subject see it exactly as you: If we ban abortion it is like a personal moral issue that society forces on women. We are not against women, it's just that we really think that all humans are equals in rights, and first of all those rights is the right to life. Only in a situation where the life of the mother is in danger we can accept that an indirect abortion can be the outcome. No reason can be put forth to justify murder except self defense. We just want this for every human being, no matter it's size, stage of development or dependency. These are differences in degree not in kind. Mankind.
You have a very cold view of the rights of a rape victim.
As to your other views, I do not believe that a fetus should have the rights of a fully-developed human being until it's systems are able to function independently outside the uterus (not get it's own bottle and change it's own diaper, but simply breathe oxygen, process food and eliminate waste independently, without reliance on its mother's body to do these things FOR it. As long as it is fully reliant upon her body to carry out these processes and incapable of doing so on its own, it is functionally a PART of her body, and her rights supercede its rights.
According to YOUR model, the rights of the fetus TAKE PRECEDENCE over the rights of the mother. According to your model, the woman who becomes pregnant CEASES to have human rights until a baby is delivered or the pregnancy spontaneously aborts. Why should the fetus have MORE rights than the fully-developed independent human being in whose body it resides?
This is a situation in which the rights of one being will HAVE to supercede the rights of another. Whether the rights of the fetus supercede those of the mother, or the rights of the mother supercede those of the fetus is the question, at its heart. Therefore, since only one of the two is capable of surviving independently of the other, the reasonable choice would seem to be that the individual capable of independent survival has the right to do so. Since the fetus cannot survive without taking over the body of the mother and without forcing her to forego her rights to function as she chooses and to medically control her own body, the fetus has fewer rights than the mother.
I think we have already discussed about humanity and dependency. We have different views.
Now about the rights issue: as i said, IF you take the hypotesis that a fetus is a human being with the same rights as any other human being including the mother we have to consider who has the more to lose. I don't think that the rights of the fetus take precedence over the rights of the mother. I just think that the right to live is more important than the right not to be pregnant (wich is a consequence of a decision of the mother). Like you said before pregnancy is a temporary condition, death is not. All the laws tend to protect life, the only exception is self defence. And the woman doesn't Cease to have human rights, she only has to temporarily give up the right not to be pregnant because the life of a human being is more important than the disadvantages and inconveniences of a 9 months pregnancy. I never said the fetus should have more rights than the mother, but as any other case when the personal freedom of two individuals come to clash, we must incline to who has more at stake. In this case is the fetus. So it's not who should have more rights, it's who's right is the most fundamental one.
I believ your reasoning justifies abortion in a situation where both the mother and the fetus are in a life threatening situation. Something that I totally agree.
While the mother may or may not die as a consequence of pregnancy, there is a very real possibility that her body may be irreversably altered, and generally not for the better. I, for instance, as a consequence of my twin pregnancy, have unremitting back, hip and leg pain for the past 8 years, since I became pregnant. I expect I will suffer from it for the remainder of my life. I also developed pancreatitis during the pregnancy, which has recurred since, and will probably suffer from pancreatic issues for the remainder of my life.
Would I do it again? You bet I would I became pregnant willingly and knowingly, and desired nothing more, despite the consequences.
On the other hand, a friend of mine, who already had 3 young children, and who suffered from a congenital heart condition, was aware that another pregnancy would likely kill her. In spite of using more than one form of birth control and taking every precaution, she still became pregnant. As painful and as difficult as it was for her, she chose to live and care for her existing children by aborting the fetus.
Another woman I know of found out during pregnancy that she had breast cancer. She chose to defer treatment until the pregnancy was complete, but died from her now incurable disease, leaving her infant motherless. Did she make a noble choice by sacrificing her life to carry that pregnancy to term? Or would it have been a more noble choice to accept treatment for her cancer, quite possibly beat it, and remain alive to care for her existing family, and maybe have another chance to become pregnant in the future?
You simply cannot make cut-and-dried statements about what choices women should make in these situations. It is not YOUR body and YOUR life which is put at risk. And when you point to the low death rate for mothers in industrialized nations, remember that this is due in great measure to our ability to control our fertility, and to terminate pregnancies which we feel put our lives or well-being at risk.
I am sorry to hear that you had such a bad outcome from your twins pregnancy. You tell me that you would do it again despite the consequences, i think you are very brave.
Now about the question (although we already are very far from the original question), i am not restricting anything. This is what abortion is: Deliberate Death of a Human Being.
Let's take this outside the womb: Let's think of a 5 years old child instead of a fetus.
In wich case can we suppress this child's life? Can we justify it alleging that it is a source of psychological stress or physical pain?
Your personal experience is very different from the other two examples. Like i said in my earlier post, and i quote:"I believe your reasoning justifies abortion in a situation where both the mother and the fetus are in a life threatening situation. Something that I totally agree."
In the case of your friend with a congenital heart condition (wich by the way did not discourage her from having 3 childs), if the doctors are confident she is at a very high risk of dying, i believe she is right in interrupting the pregnancy. I already said that i think both the mother and the child have the same rights. Furthermore: if the mother dies, the child will too so it is nonsense to condemn both.
In the case of the woman that found out of her breast cancer during pregnancy. I think that she has indeed made a noble act in deferring treatment TO TRY and save this new child. Now would have she chosen otherwise and accepted the treatment nobody could have blamed her not even the pope.
So we agree on both the (very exceptionals) examples you put forth to criticize my views, what about that?
And this is what i want to say about principles: all laws are "cut-and-dried statements" that are being put in place so as to live in peace and so that every single human can be protected from harm. Your examples are very extreme cases and they are emotionally charged but don't change what is the principle that are in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Article 3: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person".
this is my reasoning:
1.The continued development (life) of all human beings start at conception ("everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind" - Article 2 of UDHR) Distinctions used to justify abortion: size, stage of development, dependency, self-conciousness, etc...
2.Any voluntary interruption (abortion) of said development terminates this new human being (death)
3.All humans share the same rights (article 1 of UDHR), being the most fundamental one the right lo life (Article 3 of UDHR)
4.The only acceptable argument to supress life is legitimate defense or life threatening situation.
Conclusion: Abortion is wrong because it strips part of the human population of rights exposed in the UDHR Articles 1: by giving the mother right not to be pregnant precedence over the child more fundamental right to life (article 3), Article 2: by making distinctions of degree (the one i exposed earlier) but not of kind on these tinies human beings, Article 3: Not giving them the fundamental right to live. The only case where abortion is justified is if the mother's life is in absolute danger in the doctor's opinion.
"It is not YOUR body and YOUR life which is put at risk."
I care for all human beings equally, the mother and the child. Laws and governments must interfere in the personal sphere when life of human citizens are at risk or violated. So it is not my body nor my life just as it's not the mother's body nor life that is being terminated.
You are wrong about the statistics you told me earlier. The rate you gave is number of death during childbirth on total childbirths. It has nothing to do with all the childbirths that never come to happen by means of fertility control, or abortions. :-)
You might be interested in reading this page: http://www.abort73.com/index.php ?/end_abortion/is_abortion_ever_justified/
You say: "This is what abortion is: Deliberate Death of a Human Being.
Let's take this outside the womb: Let's think of a 5 years old child instead of a fetus. In wich case can we suppress this child's life? Can we justify it alleging that it is a source of psychological stress or physical pain?"
This is where we disagree. I do not consider that a 4-weeks-gestational fetus IS a fully developed and independent Human Being, deserving of being given rights which supercede the rights of the woman carrying it inside her body. That is the core of the matter.
As to this statement from you:
"In the case of your friend with a congenital heart condition (wich by the way did not discourage her from having 3 childs)"
Her condition, if it did not directly arise from her previous pregnancies, was aggravated by the stress of those pregnancies on her body to the point where she suffered cardiac arrest during the delivery of her last child, and was told she would die if she tried to have another baby.
You state:
"You are wrong about the statistics you told me earlier. The rate you gave is number of death during childbirth on total childbirths. It has nothing to do with all the childbirths that never come to happen by means of fertility control, or abortions. :-)"
You are confused about what I wrote. If I was unclear, I apologize. But I did state that SOME of the statistics I quoted, such as 1 woman in 16 dying in sub-Saharan Africa, related to their reproductive-lifetime risk of death as a result of pregnancy/childbirth.
The fact is that, yes, our risks of maternal death in this country ARE directly related to, not only improvements in prenatal care (where, in fact, we are worse than many other developed nations in maternal/fetal mortality rates), but also to the advent of reliable birth control methods and the availability of safe, legal abortion. NOT having a baby is far less risky for any given woman that HAVING a baby. Reducing the chances that women will become pregnant or carry a pregnancy to term when they are too old, too young, too ill, or too economically disadvantaged (which also increases the risk of maternal and fetal mortality), causes a dramatic drop in maternal death as a result of pregnancy/childbirth.
Pregnancy and childbirth are among the most physically demanding and physically risky activities which women undergo as a function of their biology. The ability to control fertility and pregnancy allows more women to live longer, healthier lives. No woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy against her will, any more than any other person should be forced to risk their life and long-term health against their will.
Hi,
I am glad we get to the point: "I do not consider that a 4-weeks-gestational fetus IS a fully developed and independent Human Being, deserving of being given rights which supercede the rights of the woman carrying it inside her body"
As hard as it may seem, we both agree on this: a 4 weeks gestational fetus is not a fully developed nor independent human being. But where we must also agree is that it is still a human being.
If we accept this, then abortion is not justifiable. After all a lot of other human being are not fully developed: babies aren't fully developed, toadlers aren't either. This is a distinction in degree (stage of development) not of kind (human being).
We can say the same as for dependency: a comatose person relies completely on others to survive, a diabetic person relies completely on insuline in order to survive. Some disabled people are fully dependent on others to survive. Even babies depends completely on their parents to get food. Again: a distinction of degree (dependency), not of kind (human being). Even if, as we discussed in an earlier post, fetuses before weeks 21-23 needs can only be fulfilled by their mother, it doesn't change the fact that they are human beings. I think we should see it as the way nature disposed of reproduction for the human race.
UDHR Article 2 state: "Everyone (every human being) is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind". Stage of development and dependency are distinctions put forth to justify the violation of the most innocent group of human beings one fundamental right: life.
And when you say:"...deserving of being given rights which supercede the rights of the woman carrying it inside her body".
I already explained that what you state is incorrect: It is not a matter of who's rights superseeds the other's. It is a matter of wich right is the most fundamental one: Life or Right not to be pregnant (wich by the way is incorrect: the woman is already pregnant when she decides to abort)?
You are right, i misunderstood your stats: you were talking about childbearing in pregnancy, not chilbirths. sorry about that.
Still, i have some objections to what you wrote in this last comment:
You talk about safe, legal abortions.
You say: "NOT having a baby is far less risky for any given woman that HAVING a baby" while we can of course only agree with this demagogic sentence, the problem is that when a woman practices an abortion there already is a baby! so your sentence should be "having an ABORTION is far less risky for any given woman that HAVING a baby" this is quite different.
I invite you to think better:
http://www.abort73.com/index.php ?/abortion/abortion_techniques
http://www.abort73.com/index.php ?/abortion/abortion_risks
You state:
"But where we must also agree is that it is still a human being.
If we accept this, then abortion is not justifiable."
No, I disagree. It is human cells, but so are the egg and sperm which combined to make it. And yet we have, in great measure, eschewed those traditions which would consider it wrong to "cast one's seed upon the ground" (make use of contraceptives). Certainly some religious bodies, such as the Roman Catholic Church still subscribe to this level of rigor, which traces its roots to completely unscientific and disproven theories of the "homunculus," (a miniature and complete human being contained within the male semen, which, when placed inside a womb, grows, of itself, into a baby).
Human tissues are human. They have the DNA of a human. But they are not capable of independent survival. If you remove tissue from a human and place it in a jar, it will not continue to live. It is not capable of supporting its own life, no matter how much you try keeping it warm and giving it nourishing fluids. It will, within a very short time, have no living cells remaining in it. Should it be treated as a full and complete human being? Given all the rights due to a full and complete human being? No.
And, yes, if you give a 4-weeks-gestational fetus the right to be treated as a fully-developed human being, you ARE giving it rights which supercede those of the mother. You are taking away her right to function as an independent human being for the duration of her pregnancy. You are taking away her right to determine her own bodily functions. You are forcing her to allow another being to inhabit her body, take her food and her oxygen, inflict minor or even major damage upon her system, and possibly end her life.
As to your last statement:
"the problem is that when a woman practices an abortion there already is a baby!"
I would have to correct you here and say that, no, there is not already a baby. A baby is a being which exists and functions independently (not in terms of feeding itself, but in terms of breathing, oxygenating its own blood, consuming food and eliminating its own waste). Until the time it is capable of doing so, it is an embryo or a fetus. It's mother's body is performing those functions on its behalf.
You know, I've said it before and I will say it again. I am not an "abortion supporter." I am not "pro-abortion." I would never have an abortion, and I would like to see a world where abortion seldom, if ever, occurs.
What I AM, though, is a firm supporter of the fact that a woman's right to control the functions of her own body must NOT be taken away from her by the government or society. Women ARE independent, fully-functional human beings, and they deserve the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies. I would focus my energies on teaching young women how to prevent pregnancy, and on making the means of doing so readily and easily available to every couple. THIS is how abortion rates are lowered, not by enforcing draconian laws which deprive women of their right to control the functions of their body.
My updated picture is a 12 weeks old fetus ( http://www.abort73.com/preview/images/prenatal/illustrations/12.jpg ) . do you still think it is simply human cells? Or look at a picture of a 19 weeks old: http://www.abort73.com/preview/images/prenatal/photographs/19.jpg . Still think it is not a human being? How can you say that this is only tissue?
Why isn't a fetus just part of it's mother body:
1) If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2) In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3) In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4) A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides.
5) It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6) When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7) It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
On the sperm and egg statement: You ignore the fundamental difference between a sperm and an egg prior to fertilization, and the zygote which results through fertilization. The difference is genetic. Sperm and egg cells in themselves are not complete. If left alone they will die after a few days, never developing into anything other than what they are. The sperm shares the genetic code of the man, the egg shares the genetic code of the woman. It is only in combination, when the 23 chromosomes from the father join the 23 chromosomes from the mother, through fertilization, that a new, biologically distinct human beings comes into existence. This one fertilized cell, in fact, contains all the information necessary for a lifetime of human growth. Individual sperm and egg cells are only alive in the same sense that any other human cell is "alive".
Again: "You are taking away her right to function as an independent human being for the duration of her pregnancy" Life of the fetus is more important than any inconvenience it may cause.
You even contraddict yourself here: "A baby is a being which exists and functions independently (not in terms of feeding itself, but in terms of breathing, oxygenating its own blood, consuming food and eliminating its own waste)" So it is independent but not in terms of feeding itself: this is the same as saying :is NOT fully independent, just as the fetus is NOT.
Finally:"Women ARE independent, fully-functional human beings, and they deserve the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies" I fully agree: decisions about their own bodies not the body and life of distinct, unique human beings. Women are absolutely free to have the sexual life they want. But as in everything everyone is responsible of one's own acts: if she gets pregnant she is responsible of delivering this new human being to the world. a Human being that has come into being because of her acts.
You must convince yourself that human life begins at conception because it is a fact. You can look in any embiology book: http://www.abort73.com/index.php ?/ abortion /medical_testimony
You can see that their humanity does not depends solely on if it can survive on it's own, many other humans can't either. They are human because they have a unique distinct genetic code.
http://www.abort73.com/index.php ?/abortion/prenatal_development.
I am glad that you are against abortion. But when personal behaviours go against the freedom and the life of other humans the government and society have THE DUTY to take away even personal rights to defend the weakest.
I agree that if you don't get convinced that fetuses are human beings then you will never change your mind. Still, i am sure that if you looked at the pictures you will start doubting where you stand in this debate.
I never said that the fetus was part of the mother's body. I never claimed they shared the same DNA, were of the same gender or had the same blood type. I've studied hundreds of pictures of photos of embryos and fetuses at various stages of development. You are fighting with strawmen, here.
Your lecture on genetics is unnecessary, and not germane to the issue. You continue to refuse to address the violation of a woman's rights to control the functions of her own body which is represented by forcing her to carry a pregnancy against her will. You clearly believe that what you view as the fetus's rights outweigh the woman's rights to control her body's functions, but you refuse to justify that belief.
"You continue to refuse to address the violation of a woman's rights to control the functions of her own body which is represented by forcing her to carry a pregnancy against her will. You clearly believe that what you view as the fetus's rights outweigh the woman's rights to control her body's functions, but YOU REFUSE TO JUSTIFY THAT BELIEF."
I think you don't want to see it, because i have explained it many times in all my posts. I will try to put it in the simplest way possible
My belief is based on facts: In the scientific community there is no doubt on when the life of a new human being begins; at conception. From that moment on a new, distinct and unique human being starts to develop. any interruption in the process is the termination of a human life. This shouldn't be too hard to understand. All my arguments assume this fact of science. This is what i use to justify everything i wrote. Facts not personal belief or your theory about humanity based not on dependency, not stage of development, not even personhood but mediacal knowledge of a specific time. You said: "For purposes of determining whose rights supercede whose, I believe that the mother's rights to her own body and to governing the processes of her own body supercede any rights of the fetus until such time as the fetus would be viable outside of the uterus."
Based on your theory a 24 weeks old fetus is elegible of all other human beings right's in 2009 but not in say 1960. This is absurd. Humanity, and this is a fact, is based on genetics, so i think that my lecture on genetics is very necessary.
I have addressed the issue of the rights of the mother many times. She should be free to do what she wants with her body except when her freedom of choice causes harms or death to another human being (because i assume, as explained at the beginning, a fetus, an embryo, even a morula is the same unique, distinct human being that will grow and become a baby and then a man). She is free to have the sexual life she chooses to have but she is responsible for her acts like anybody else. If she gets pregnant she is morally responsible to protect and carry the child. Personal freedom ends where the personal freedom of others begins.
Our laws are based on responsability, not willingness. If ikill someone unintentionally with my car i will be punished for the consequences not the intentionality.
The woman didn't want to get pregnant but she did.
I didn't want to kill the guy but i did.
We must now face the consequences of our acts:
She had a sexual intercourse and got pregnant, she must carry a pregnancy during 9 months.
I got distracted and killed the guy, i must pay a fee and possibly spend some time in jail.
Why are we forcing this woman into a 9 months pregnancy?
1. Because she is responsible for it (except in a case of rape)
2. Because her "punishment" of 9 months pregnancy is justified because the alternative would be a life sentence to an innocent human being.
And yes i think that the right to life ALWAYS outweigh the woman's rights to control her body's functions. Actually i think that the right to life outweighs anyone's other rights.
So, When does the life of a human being begins to develop for you? (this was the original question) Because all i saw written from you is when a fetus got the rights we give to all other humans? (this is more a question of personhood, not humanity).
ussitano, you can insist until you are blue in the face that there is some kind of "scientific agreement" that life begins at conception and that therefore an embryo deserves more rights than the woman in whose womb it is developing. This does not make it so.
You claim that it has always been thus, and yet, throughout history, the definition of when life began has differed dramatically. For much of history, a fetus was not considered "human" until its mother felt a "quickening" inside her -- in other words, felt the fetus kicking, which occurs between 4-6 months gestation, depending up on whether the pregnancy is her first or a subsequent one. Historically in some societies, a baby was not considered a full human being until it passed its first birthday, and was not given a name until that time. The fact is, there IS no universally agreed-upon definition, scientifically or historically, of "when life begins" or "when is a fetus considered a human being." If there were, we would not be having this debate.
As to your "lecture on genetics," no, it's not necessary. It is very basic material, and, again, not germane to the topic. The fact that the fetus has different DNA from the mother does not give it the right to supercede her control of her body. Parasitical organisms have different DNA from their hosts. This does not give them rights which supercede those of their host.
As to your argument that because a woman has sex this somehow equates to consent to carry a pregnancy, I beg to differ. A man does not consent to have his body take over by an alien being, simply because he has sex. Sure, if people have sex and bring a baby into the world, they are both equally responsible for raising it. But a woman who becomes pregnant is giving up control of her body for 9 months, and consenting to a process which may lead to her death or permanent disability. This is not the same as consent to sexual intercourse.
I have answered the question. There IS certainly "life" at conception -- in that there are functioning cells, there is cell replication and growth. However, the tissue which begins to form after the egg is fertilized is not, in my opinion, a fully-functional human being until the point where it could be viable outside of the uterus. At that point, I would grant that it should have the status of a full human being and all the rights pertaining to that status. I would even grant that the line should be drawn at no more than 20 weeks, since technology to sustain the life of a premature infant improves constantly. When it becomes possible to remove a fertilized egg from the mother's body, place it in solution and grow it to full term in vitro (or transplanted into another woman's uterus), consistently, reliably, safely and affordably, I will say there is no further justification for abortion . Then you can go to every pregnant woman who wishes to abort, and you can gather up those embryos and, at your expense, bring them to term and find homes for them. If you want to end abortion, donate your time, money and efforts to scientific research in human in vitro gestation or embryonic transplantation.
...when does life begin?
This is not the same as "when is a fetus considered a human being?".
While there is a definitive answer to the first question, i thought we were discussing the latter.
Since you still think that life begins after conception i will try to show you what are these scientific facts that i am not making up.
Life definitions (from wiktionary.com):
1 The state that precedes death and follows birth or CONCEPTION.
2 (biology) A status given to any entity including animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, etc. having the properties of replication and metabolism.
Synonyms: existence
So, you must ask yourself this simple question: What is the moment 0 of this existence? From which moment the continuous development of the human being starts?
This is what the experts agree upon:
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
"Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote."
T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.
"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."
Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
While the historical knowledge is based on popular beliefs, the scientific community nowadays thanks to the new advanced technology is universally confident that life begins at conception.
If you accept this then we can continue debating on "when is a fetus considered a human being?". If you don't then there is no point trying to convince you.
http://www.abort73.com/index.php ?/ abortion /medical_testimony
The fact that the fetus IS NOT a fully functional human being does not make it less HUMAN.
You are giving him rights based on his stage of development, not his humanity that is what matters.
You are discriminating this human being because he is dependent and not fully functional, this goes against the UDHR Article 2.
"When it becomes possible to remove a fertilized egg from the mother's body, place it in solution and grow it to full term in vitro". This is to go against nature, the fetus is ment to grow in it's mother womb, it's not something that society or government forces upon the mother.
And no, i will not donate my time, money and efforts to scientific research in human in vitro gestation or embryonic transplantation, because to treat human beings as rat labs is also a further violation of human rights.
PS: if you try and justify abportion putting aliens into the equation we can end this interesting debate right away.
If "life" is sacred and must not be destroyed, then I hope that you are a vegetarian. Live tissue is not automatically accorded human rights. Just because an embryo or fetus can be said to "have life" does not make it an independently-functional being with rights which supercede those of the woman whose uterus it occupies. I don't know how much more clear I can be. If you are not satisfied with that answer, ussitano, then you may need to look elsewhere, because it is the one I have consistently presented and will continue to present.
As to your "threat" to end the discussion if I talk about aliens, you appear to be being intentionally obtuse, here. I am obviously not referring to "aliens from outer space." Please. I seriously doubt you thought that was my meaning. I am referring to alien tissue. You have been at pains to continue pointing out the truism that the mother and fetus have different DNA. Of course they do. Thus, the fetus is alien tissue within the mother's body. But if you wish to use that as an excuse to leave in a huff, you should feel free. At this point, the discussion is becoming awfully repetitive.
You started this debate by saying in your first post: “I agree that personhood is the issue far more than "when does life begin."
But you still refuse to answer the question: “when does life begin” aka “when does the development of a distinct human being begins”. You asked me to justify this scientific fact. I gave you facts, now I wait for your answer. You said: “I have answered the question. There IS certainly "life" at conception -- in that there are functioning cells, there is cell replication and growth. However, the tissue which begins to form after the egg is fertilized is not, in my opinion, a fully-functional human being until the point where it could be viable outside of the uterus”
This does not answer the question “when does the development of a distinct human being begins”. While you can claim that 5 minutes prior to viability we shouldn’t entitle the fetus personhood, you cannot say that 5 minutes before viability the fetus is not human. The choices are: At conception, after conception. If you still believe that it is after conception you should prove it just like I did. Because while you can claim (even if wrong) that personhood should be given based upon viability outside the uterus, to deny that the human existence begins at conception is simply false. All debate on abortion should start with this fundamental truth: the development of every human being begins at conception, when we abort we are at some point terminating the life of a developing human being.
So: “when does the development of a distinct human being begins”?
Answer: ?
If you admit that the answer is at conception (and you should change your side) then i think we shall continue with the debate on personhood wich is a very interesting one.
Let's see...
Is the life of a fetus of more value than the life of a 9-year-old child?
Because that's what the Roman Catholic Church has just declared. Perhaps you've heard the story about the 9-year-old impregnated with twins by her rapist step"father"? The doctors said she wouldn't survive the pregnancy, and her mother consented to a therapeutic abortion .
Now the Roman Catholic Church has EXCOMMUNICATED the mother and the doctors for participating in this abortion, but refuses to do anything to the man who REPEATEDLY RAPED this 9-year-old child over the past 3 years and impregnated her.
Special.
My impression is that you have been arguing this issue as a Catholic. If I'm incorrect in that assumption, please pardon. But I recall you saying that abortion should be permitted in cases where the life of the mother was at risk. Apparently your (presumed) church has now changed its stance. Apparently if a 9-year-old becomes pregnant by her rapist stepfather, she should just shut up and die.
Really, really special. I can't find words strong enough to express my rage at this moment.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/church-excommunicates-mother-of-9yearold-rape-victim-ndash-but-not-accused-rapist-14218389.html
Yes i'm a catholic (it appears stated in my profile).
I'm not the church, nor do i agree with all that tthe church says. I have already told you that my point of view is that if the life of the mother is at risk then abortion is acceptable as the greater good.
This is simply because if the mother dies so will the chld(s). It is not because we consider the life of the mother to be of greatest value than that of the fetus.
I didn't use any religious argument in any of my posts because i believe that this, and so believe many agnostics, is a question of dignity of the human being and a matter of human rights.
As mother Theresa once said: "But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. "
So yes i'm a catholic and i disagree with this excommunication. After all the Church is made out of human beings and they also make mistakes as history tells.
You find yourself outraged about this story. Still in the end the girl had her abortion and everything went well. Imagine how do i feel about the 42 millions (as in 2003) abortions worldwide every year. Many of them happening after week 21-23. Still we are often outraged about news like the one you posted but say noting about the death of millions of innocent human beings every year.
So Babaroni,
You still didn't answer my question: "when does the development of a distinct human being begins?"
You have repeatedly answered another question: "At what point to we give a fetus human rights (personhood)" I recall to you that the post we are answering is "when does life begins", not "should we ban abortion ?" or any other similar question. Since 51% of people think it is after conception i have to insist that it is a fact of science that it is at conception.
The fact is that my point of view is sustained by the unanimity of embryologist and by the Universal declaration of uman rights. Yours is sustained on thin air:
1."MY PERSONAL SENSE is that "personhood" comes at the point when a fetus would be capable of survival outside the uterus"
>It's not a question of personal sense, it's a question of defining principles based on facts to protect human dignity at any stage as defined in the universal declaration of human rights. It's a question of reason against feelings.
2."the onset of "personhood" will fluctuate BASED UPON EXISTING TECHNOLOGY"
> person: 1: a human being (define.com). A human is a human, it's existence cannot be based on technology
3."Once a fetus is capable of being sustained outside the uterus, I would consider it to have independent life, and therefore, personhood"
>As explained a fetus is not more dependent than a baby. both depend on it's mother in order to survive. Fetuses and babies are the same : human beings, just at a different stage of development.
>Person= Human being at any stage of development even at fetal stage
4."In the case of a fetus prior to... ...It is, in essence, a "parasite" (by strict medical definition) upon the mother's system"
>False! : parasite: 1. an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (ANOTHER ANIMAL OR PLANT) (define.com) A fetus is not a parasite because it is of the same specie than the Host (the mother).
As i told you this is a child-mother relationship. A mother is responsible to deliver the child to life: by instinct and as a result of her acts. Your SEX=EATING argument is also false.
5.a "As long as it is fully reliant upon her body to carry out these processes and incapable of doing so on its own, it is functionally a PART of her body, and her rights supercede its rights"
5.b "if you give a 4-weeks-gestational fetus the right to be treated as a fully-developed human being, you ARE giving it rights which supercede those of the mother. You are taking away her right to function as an independent human being for the duration of her pregnancy. You are taking away her right to determine her own bodily functions"
5.c "What I AM, though, is a firm supporter of the fact that a woman's right to control the functions of her own body must NOT be taken away from her by the government or society. Women ARE independent, fully-functional human beings, and they deserve the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies"
> This is why i had to show you why a fetus is not part of the mother's body to wich you so violently replied: "I never said that the fetus was part of the mother's body"
Can you explain to me this contradiction?
6. "If "life" is sacred and must not be destroyed, then I hope that you are a vegetarian. Live tissue is not automatically accorded human rights"
> Since when vegetals have no life? Anyway, we are not talking about human tissue, nor eggs and sperm, we are talking about a new, distinct and unique human being that comes into existence from the moment of fertilization.
As i said: "While you can claim that 5 minutes prior to viability we shouldn’t entitle the fetus personhood, you cannot say that 5 minutes before viability the fetus is not human". This is where you cannot disagree.
No, I have not refused to answer the question. I've answered it repeatedly. You simply refuse to accept that my answer disagrees with yours.
Ask yourself this question.
When does 1 + 1 = 2?
Now or three months from Now?
Airdale
I say life happens three months prior to intercourse, conception is utterly meaningless to me. It is also meaningless to you, you just don't realize it. If one believes physicality is what determines agency, then, one must also believe that the very concept, of conception, is meaningless. Thus the two beliefs are at odds. If however you believe intentionality is substance, then, I give you any such arbitrary boundary as you please, but I cannot give them to the whole of society.
First, I find it interesting that you intentionally choose the loaded term "anti-choice" as opposed to pro life to describe your opponents. Of course the other side does the same with pro- abortion but that doesn't make it a sound practice. Your argument should stand on its merits, not on emptionally loaded terms.
Second, your argument that personhood is what matters is, in my view, a subterfuge. What I can't fathom is why, when you cannot say when that is, any more than others can answer when life begins, you have no problem with proceed with abortion without an answer. Whether the issue is life or personhood, the same problem remains. If you can't determine when personhood occurs, you always run the risk of killing a person through abortion.
In the end all you've really done is move the problem somewhere else. You haven't solved anything.
Just because you can't nail down the exact time of personhood doesn't mean to can't say it's "sometime after this point" or "sometime before that point". I won't speak for the earlier poster, but I would argue that it's sometime after the brain begins to develop, and sometime around or before self-awareness. That is not to say there is no value in an entity during other time-frames, but that the value is not that of a "person".
The sperm and egg have only 1/2 the chromosomes so technically don't qualify as a living species. Individual cells in our body are alive but can't develop into anything else so they don't qualify. The question "When does life begin" should really be stated When does the beginning of human development start (not personhood). The original question is so general as to be unanswerable and is irrelevant. When does what life begin?
It is amazing to see how the advances in embryology since the mid-70s have required pro-choice Catholics to rely upon doctrines like quickening and ensouling in order to justify their position. Instead of addressing the question of when life begins, they choose to address a religious question -- "When does someone receive a soul?" Not surprisingly, they conclude that there is not a consensus answer. Uncertainty is bliss.
However, the issue of when human life begins is a scientific one. At the moment of conception, a distinct human life is created. An individual member of our species, with his or her own DNA, has come into existence. That life may be cut short before birth because of miscarriage or abortion, but the life is a human one. It is not going to be a puppy. It is not going to be a pony. It is going to be a baby.
Evading the fact that life begins at conception may let people like Mr. O'Brien sleep better at night, but it is intellectually dishonest. I actually have more respect for people like the feminist writer Camille Paglia, who is honest enough to admit that abortion takes a human life, but feels that countervailing interests mandate that we allow the practice to exist.
a womans body is hers to decide what lives in it and what does not. there is no right to use someone's body against their will. that is a form of rape. forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus against her will is the ultimate rape of a woman. i would never let anyone abuse my own body like that. it is beyond cruel to force a rape victim to carry an uninvited fetus to term thereby raping her again for the next 9 months by taking away the control of her body from her. bodily autonomy is the issue. and the woman has it not the fetus.
Rapes account for less than 1% of the abortions each year, so in over 99% of the abortions you are not dealing with those horrendous circumstances.
Why does only the mother have bodily autonomy? Is it because she is bigger than the fetus? Is it because we can see her, but can only see the fetus on a sonogram? Is it because she can speak for herself and the fetus cannot?
The entire concept that the mother should have complete control over the fate of her unborn child has always struck me as illogical. If the woman wants the baby, she will protect the baby with her life and will try to do everything in her power to make sure the child is born healthy.
If the mother then decides she not want the baby, for any reason or no reason at all, suddenly he or she is considered a parasite that can be destroyed.
The fetus has not changed in any way. It is still the same unborn life. Should anyone have the authority to arbitrarily destroy another life?
that 1% adds up to 16,000 rape victims every year in the US, one of whom was my friend. that is no insignifacant amount. rape takes away complete control of a persons body. forced pregnancy does it to an infinetly more gruesome degree.
as for consensual pregnancy, i am a bit torn. the reason that for rape victims at least should have a right to eject the fetus is because it frees her body from a further violation of her person.
and i dont think a woman should have an absolute right to kill a fetus. i think if the fetus is viable, she can have it taken out but you dont need to kill it to do that.
I am sorry your friend had to deal with such a terrible situation. Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned, I do not think any states would pass a law that precluded abortion in the case of rape. There seems to be a strong majority in favor of that exception remaining.
Some women have decided to have the baby after a rape. I remember reading awhile back about a mother who was trying to figure out how to explain to her daughter that the daughter was the result of a rape. I think she decided in the end to tell the daughter that the best thing in her life came out of the worst day of her life.
thank you for understanding. girls like my friend appreciate it
I really appreciate your argument, and I do find arguments regarding the soul to be pure nonsense. I am not entirely sure where I stand on this argument, probably because it is an entirely semantic one. If we have a real definition for what "life" is, then this argument is over. Nevertheless, I wanted to pose one question. In your view, what is the difference between a single unfertilized egg (or sperm for that matter), and a fertilized egg? Neither will be a puppy or a pony, and while their existence may be cut short for one reason or another, the only outcome for it to survive would be to become a baby.
The sperm is a part of the father's body. The unfertilized egg is a part of the mother's body. When they are combined, they create a new life, with its own DNA pattern and individual existence. The new life is reliant on the mother's body, but it is a separate life.
Sperm and eggs have unique DNA patterns, and you are merely restating your argument. Why does the combination qualify as new life, when the individual parts don't? I'm not saying that you are wrong, but in situations such as this, we need to be extremely rigorous in the way we define our terms and state our arguments. It's not good enough to just say this is "new life" and it has "individual existence," please explain how those claims are justified.
Neither an egg, nor sperm cell contains a full 46 chromosomes which gnetically comprise a human being. Sort of like a hair follicle; the genes aren't all activated, so it's only part of a human being; same with somatic cells; they only have part of a particular human's DNA.
However, when 2 sets of chromosomes combine, and are fully active (as is the case at conception) you have, not a part of a human, but an entire human, for the cell is the fundamental unit of life, biologically.
The sperm and egg have DNA patterns from the parents. It is the combination of the DNA patterns that creates a new person.
Sperm by itself does not become a new life. An egg by itself does not become a new life. You combine the two and you have a new life. A new person will come into the world in nine months as long as nothing happens to the unborn child during that period.
It is incorrect to say that the issue has been resolved by science. What is the molecular change that is so important? The unique genetic events happen earlier, when the gametes form. Conception is a necessary event, but it is only one of many along the way. Because our biomedical sciences are in the era of the gene, we have become focussed on the importance of genes in every process. We confer a false sense of importance to a unique set of genetic material.
Identical twins are illustrative. Their separate lives certainly don't begin at conception.
At the moment of conception a new member of the species has been created. Genes are important because they are the code for what that person will become. The fact that identical twins become two lives instead of one does not change that. The issue here is whether abortion destroys a life, and it clearly does.
It is simply your opinion that a new member of the species is created at conception. The issue is not that cut and dry. Genes are important, but they only do part of the job of creating a person. There is nothing inherently special about a new combination of genes, that is not what makes us who we are.
Yes, a fetus is alive, and abortion is the end of that life. If you think war is sometimes justified then I don't see how this is "the issue here." I would never argue that abortion is a good thing. It is sometimes the lesser of two evils.
At conception, a living, unique member of the human species has been formed. There is no debate here. Any scientist will tell you that a fetus is both alive and human. (as opposed to, say dog) Sperm and eggs are also technically alive, and human.(assuming they came from a human) The difference is in the DNA. A fetus has the same DNA it will have for the rest of its life. It is a new and individual member of the species. Whether it is a person and thus entitled to rights is up for debate. However, a fetus is definitely alive, and definitely a member of the human species.
At the moment of conception a new member of our species is created. If nothing happens to him or her, in nine months they will be what anyone would consider a person.
It is my opinion that it is not acceptable to destroy the unborn during those nine months simply because they have not been born yet. The person each of us becomes is certainly molded by more than just our genes. However, an unborn child who is aborted never gets a chance to become anything.
I see no comparison between abortion and war. Soldiers are combatants and sometimes they kill each other. In an abortion an innocent life is intentionally destroyed. The corresponding action in a war would be the intentional killing of an innocent civilian, which is considered a war crime.
Abortions can happen naturally or be induced. What is the moral difference?